Qualitative study reveals accessibility barriers in diabetes management for individuals with vision loss, indicating a need for better solutions.
Introduction and Objective: Diabetes is the leading cause of vision loss in the United States and nearly 1 in 3 people with diabetes have diabetic retinopathy, yet diabetes treatment is not accessible for people with vision disabilities. There is minimal research on diabetes treatment and its accessibility for people who have diabetes and vision loss. Methods: Data was collected via Qualtrics from December 2025 to January 2026. The study was approved by Ohio University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB: IRB-FY25-541). Results: Forty-five participants completed the survey, and after data cleaning, the sample = 31 participants. Demographics included average age = 62 (SD = 11.53, range 35-80 years), 61% female, 36% male, and 3% did not respond. The majority of the sample identified as white (68%). Regarding diabetes demographics, the average A1c = 7.1% (SD = 1.47) and the average diabetes duration = 27.41 (SD = 20.51) years. The majority of participants used insulin (55%) and CGM (71%). The majority of the sample (58%) had type 2 diabetes. Participants qualitatively reported their lived experience engaging with diabetes care teams and encountered accessibility and disability competency barriers to diabetes care. Key issues included lack of diabetes care team training about blindness and diabetes management. Qualitative data indicated a lack of alignment between diabetes technology uptake and the ADA’s Standards of Care. Conclusion: The results demonstrate a need for improvement in diabetes care and diabetes technology accessibility for people with vision loss. Future research should investigate using Electronic Health Records in large, diverse samples. Disclosure A.S. Hughes: None. M.N. Adams: None. N. Phan: None. R. Bican: None. N.M. Heydarian: None.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hughes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: