Focus group explores accessibility of diabetes technology in DHH population, highlighting barriers and solutions.
Background Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) populations face higher rates of diabetes and systemic barriers accessing diabetes technology. Effective use of diabetes technology relies on sensory (e.g., visual and audible) input and interpretation by the user. This study evaluates the accessibility of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) and insulin pumps for DHH individuals. Methods A 2‐h focus group was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the accessibility of two CGM and six insulin pumps in a sample of DHH individuals during an interactive, hands‐on session. Participants used an investigator‐developed 6‐point Likert‐like scale to score audible, haptic, and visual alarm features for each device and provided additional qualitative feedback that was captured. Observational field notes and team debriefing notes were analyzed using a thematic qualitative approach. Results Nine diverse DHH participants living with diabetes consistently scored all devices as poor across each alarm feature. Median scores for audible, haptic and visual alarms for CGM were 2, 2.6, and 1.2 and for insulin pumps were 0.5, 2, and 0.7, respectively. The overall qualitative theme was that the evaluated diabetes technology devices were not designed to be accessible for DHH individuals. Participants noted that CGM and insulin pump companies fell short in providing audible, haptic, and visual alarms and provided several important recommendations. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of diabetes technology companies including the creative and diverse perspectives of DHH people in diabetes technology design and testing to optimize accessibility. This inclusive approach fosters innovation by integrating universal design principles that can ultimately enhance the experience for all users.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Litchman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: