This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Aim: How well new technology is applied to the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) may be highly influenced by personality traits. The number of studies examining how personality traits influence diabetes self-management technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring and carbohydrate counting with automated insulin bolus calculation based on carbohydrate ratios and insulin sensitivity is scarce. Derived from a randomized controlled trial, we aimed to examine the association between personality traits and glycemic and patient-reported outcomes in adults with T1D on multiple daily insulin injections initiating flash glucose monitoring and carbohydrate counting with automated bolus calculation. Methods: Personality trait scores from The Five-Factor Inventory-3 were analyzed in 170 individuals. We assessed baseline (n = 168) and changes (n = 34) in HbA1c, and patient-reported outcomes (validated questionnaires on diabetes distress, diabetes treatment satisfaction, diabetes psychosocial self-efficacy, diabetes quality of life) in bivariate and partial correlation analyses with personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). Results: Adjusted for sex, age, and diabetes debut age, higher agreeableness correlated negatively with baseline HbA1c (partial correlation -0.20, p < 0.05) but positively with HbA1c change over time (0.36, p < 0.05). Higher neuroticism score was associated with higher baseline distress (0.39, p < 0.001) and lower baseline psychosocial self-efficacy (-0.43, p < 0.001), quality of life (-0.32, p < 0.001) and treatment satisfaction (-0.18, p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study confirms that personality traits are associated with glycemia and patient-reported outcomes in adults with T1D. Consequently, tailored diabetes management approaches are likely to enhance overall outcomes, especially when incorporating diabetes technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Secher et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: