What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Type 1 Diabetes (n=38). Intervention: Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data sharing vs. Parent vs peer support persons. Primary outcome: Prevalence of themes regarding risks, benefits, and ground rules of CGM data sharing by relationship type.

What does this research mean for the field?

CGM data sharing among emerging adults with type 1 diabetes provides benefits such as security and improved relationships, but also poses risks to autonomy and communication that can be mitigated by establishing ground rules. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to explore how emerging adults with type 1 diabetes share continuous glucose monitor data with significant others and the associated risks and benefits.

June 7, 2026

1544-P: Continuous Glucose Monitor Data-Sharing Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Risks, Benefits, and Ground Rules

Resultado clave

CGM data sharing among emerging adults with T1D supported security but posed risks, with alert-related communication ground rules more common among parent support persons (80%) than peers (50%).

Puntos clave

This research aims to explore how emerging adults with type 1 diabetes share continuous glucose monitor data with significant others and the associated risks and benefits.
Emerging adults (ages 18-24) with type 1 diabetes and their significant partners were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial.
Twenty dyads were interviewed about their CGM data sharing experiences, focusing on risks, benefits, and communication ground rules.
Thematic analysis and comparative analyses were performed to identify themes by relationship type.
Benefits identified included improved security and enhanced relationships, while risks included concerns about burdening significant partners and excessive communication about diabetes.
56% of significant partners reported no risks compared to 35% of emerging adults.
Ground rules for communication about data sharing were more prevalent in parent-emerging adult dyads, particularly regarding alert notifications.

Diseño del estudio

Tipo

Cross-Sectional (n=38)

Multicéntrico

Sí

PICO estructurado

Does continuous glucose monitor data sharing improve relationships and security in emerging adults with T1D?

Población

38 participants comprising emerging adults (aged 18-24) with T1D and their support persons who shared CGM data during a prior RCT, interviewed about data sharing relationships.

Exposición

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data sharing with family/friends (support persons)

Resultado

Themes regarding CGM data sharing relationships, including risks, benefits, and ground rulespatient reported

CGM data sharing among emerging adults with T1D provides security but requires ground rules to mitigate risks to autonomy and communication, especially with parents.

Resumen

Introduction and Objective: Emerging adults (EAs) with T1D face elevated HbA1c, increased diabetes distress, and evolving social relationships. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) improve outcomes and allow EAs to share data with family/friends. Little is known about data sharing relationships during this developmental phase. Methods: EAs (age 18-24) with T1D and their SPs in California and Utah enrolled in an RCT of a self-management support intervention. After the RCT, we invited 20 dyads who had shared data during the RCT to complete separate interviews (8/2024-9/2025) asking about CGM data sharing relationships, including risks, benefits, and ground rules. We conducted thematic analysis followed by comparative analyses on prevalence of themes by relationship type (parent or peer). Results: EA CGM users were 21.4±2.1 years old; 65% were female, 75% non-Hispanic white, 5% non-Hispanic Black, and 20% Hispanic. SPs were 50% male; 50% were parents, and 50% were peers (45% partners, 5% friend). Identified benefits of data sharing included security/peace of mind and improved relationships. Risks or downsides included concerns about worrying/burdening the SP, too much communication about glucose/diabetes, and CGM breaks/failures causing alarm. More SPs said there were no risks or downsides to data sharing (56%, 10/18) compared to EAs (35%, 7/20). Concerns about worrying SPs were more common among EA-parent dyads. For ground rules, respondents discussed when and how to communicate about alerts, conversations when reviewing trends, and avoiding judging the EA based on CGM values. Ground rules about alert-related communication were more common among parent SPs (80%, 8/10 parents vs. 50%, 4/8 peers). Conclusion: CGM data sharing among EAs with T1D may support security and improve relationships but pose risks to autonomy and communication. Ground rules support successful data sharing relationships, especially in parent-EA dyads. Findings can inform future work supporting CGM data sharing in the context of changing relationships in emerging adulthood Disclosure L.S. Mayberry: None. E.L. Morrow: None. S.A. Boyd: None. E. Bergner: None. J. Raymond: None. A. Nigg: None. M. Roddy: None. D. Wiebe: None. C.A. Berg: None. Funding Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (R-2203-05822)

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar