↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed-loop systems in the management of diabetes: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetic Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed-loop systems in the management of diabetes: a review
Published in
Diabetic Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1111/dme.13567
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Farrington

Abstract

There is a pressing need for new treatment regimens that enable improved glycaemic control and reduced diabetes self-management burdens. Closed-loop, or artificial pancreas, systems represent one of the most promising avenues in this regard. Closed-loop systems connect wearable continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensors to smartphone- or tablet-mounted algorithms that process and model CGM data to deliver precise and frequently updated doses of fast-acting insulin (and glucagon in dual-hormone systems) to users via wearable pumps. Recent studies have demonstrated that closed-loop systems offer significant benefit in terms of improved glycaemic control. However, less attention has been paid to the psychosocial impact on users of closed-loop systems. This article reviews recent research on psychosocial aspects of closed-loop usage in light of preceding research on user experience of currently available technologies such as insulin pumps and CGM sensors. The small, but growing body of research in this field reports generally positive user experience and a number of experienced benefits including: reassurance and reduced anxiety, improved sleep and confidence, and 'time off' from diabetes demands. However, these benefits are counterbalanced by important challenges, ranging from variable levels of trust to concerns about physical bulk, technical glitches and difficulties incorporating closed-loop systems into everyday life. Future research should explore psychosocial aspects of closed-loop usage in more diverse groups and with regard to clinicians, as well as users, to ensure that the clinical benefits of closed-loop systems are realized at scale in routine medical care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 28%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Unspecified 10 25%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 8 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,891,573
of 13,092,437 outputs
Outputs from Diabetic Medicine
#1,751
of 2,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,347
of 269,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetic Medicine
#35
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,092,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.