Cross-sectional study examines how stigma affects technology satisfaction in young people with type 1 diabetes, suggesting need for improved access.
Background/Aim There was no clinical evidence regarding the relationship between stigmatization and satisfaction with diabetes technologies in persons with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the association between perceived stigma and satisfaction with diabetes technologies among adolescents and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in three hospitals of Turkey between July 4, 2022, and March 1, 2023. The study sample consisted of 150 persons with type 1 diabetes aged 12–22 who attended these hospitals. Data were collected using the “Patient Information Form,” “Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ),” and “Type 1 Diabetes Stigma Assessment Scale (DSAS-1).” Results The disease-related characteristics of the participants were examined. It was found that 92% used an insulin pen, 90.6% used a glucometer for glucose measurement, 57.4% measured glucose in public places such as buses and cafes, and 33.8% experienced discrimination in public while measuring glucose. Additionally, 52.7% experienced hyperglycemia, 44.7% experienced hypoglycemia, and 10.7% had a chronic disease. In multiple regression analyses, higher perceived stigma (DSAS-1 total; standardized β = − 0.64, p < .001) and the number of blood glucose measurements per day ( β = − 0.225, p = .029) were independently associated with lower satisfaction with diabetes technologies (DTQ), after adjusting for covariates. Conclusions As DTQ scores increased, the DSAS-1 total scores decreased. Improving access to diabetes technologies for individuals with type 1 diabetes should be prioritized. Additionally, randomized controlled studies could be conducted to further explore the impact of diabetes technologies on perceived stigma in people with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çoban et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: