Qualitative study reveals improved safety tracking and lower stress among caregivers of older adults adopting continuous glucose monitoring remotely, highlighting technology benefits.
Introduction and Objective: Despite proven benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in older adults with insulin-treated diabetes, adoption remains suboptimal. While caregivers are integral to technology adoption in this population, their experiences are poorly characterized. The REST (Readiness, Education and Sustainability for CGM Technology adoption) study facilitates CGM adoption and sustained use in older adults through virtual education and support. We examined caregivers’ views in REST. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with caregivers supporting older adults (≥65 years) with insulin-treated diabetes during CGM adoption through remote education. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methodology by independent coders using qualitative analysis software (MaxQDA). Results: Ten caregivers were interviewed (90% family member, 10% paid caregiver). All reported positive experiences with CGM, needing 2-4 weeks to adapt to this new technology. Analysis revealed 4 key themes: (1) technology use (60% reporting adoption challenges with alarm customization and socialization impact; 50% reporting sleep disruption); (2) safety monitoring (90% reported improved ability to track glucose patterns with perceived safety benefits during participants’ physical activity and sleep), (3) behavioral changes (70% noting perceived improved dietary awareness; 60% reporting perceived greater engagement in diabetes self-management by participants), and (4) care relationships (40% reported perceived increase in participant independence and decrease in caregiver stress). Conclusion: These data show that CGM adoption through remote education with caregiver engagement yields high satisfaction while improving perception of safety, care behaviors and relationships. Findings suggest benefits of CGM use for the caregivers of older adults with diabetes on complex insulin regimens, providing further support for the widespread use of this technology. Disclosure A. Adam: None. M. Savory: None. C. Slyne: None. H. Brabant: None. J.D. Bulger: None. N. Krakoff: None. S. Kasetti: None. C. Mahoney: None. M. Munshi: Advisory Panel; Abbott, Medtronic. Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. Advisory Panel; Sanofi. R.S. Weinstock: Research Support; Amgen Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Insulet Corporation, MannKind Corporation, Dexcom, Inc. E. Toschi: Consultant; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Sequel Med Tech. Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. Funding This work is supported by funding from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: