Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) represents a paradigm shift in diabetes management, transitioning care from reactive monitoring to proactive glycemic control; however, its adoption remains stratified by deep-seated socioeconomic and structural, and technological inequities. This narrative review synthesizes literature published between 2017 and 2025 to evaluate the clinical efficacy of CGM while interrogating the socio-technical barriers shaping its accessibility. A thematic analysis of current evidence confirms that while CGM significantly improves HbA1c, quality of life, and hypoglycemia reduction across Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, access to these outcomes is severely constrained by systemic and digital obstacles. Key findings identify a “coverage patchwork” wherein high out-of-pocket costs and administrative hurdles disproportionately restrict access for Medicaid beneficiaries and low-income populations. Furthermore, the review highlights persistent racial disparities driven by provider implicit bias, alongside a “digital divide” where limited connectivity and low eHealth literacy impede effective utilization. Consequently, without intervention, CGM risks functioning as an “accelerator of disparities,” creating a two-tier healthcare system that privileges “data-rich” early adopters while leaving marginalized groups behind. The authors conclude that bridging this gap requires a multifaceted strategy integrating policy reform, inclusive device design, and literacy-centered education to ensure technological innovation advances health equity rather than reinforcing the “Matthew Effect” in diabetes management.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Aleksandra Banaś
Hubert Bigajski
Medical University of Silesia
Szymon Janczarski
Medical University of Silesia
International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science
Medical University of Silesia
University of Silesia in Katowice
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Banaś et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/699010382ccff479cfe56d53 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.4(48).2025.4457
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: