What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to assess the acceptability of automated insulin delivery (AID) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among nurses and people with diabetes (PwD) in a hospital.

June 7, 2026

1892-P: Acceptability of Automated Insulin Delivery in the Hospital

Key Points

This research aims to assess the acceptability of automated insulin delivery (AID) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among nurses and people with diabetes (PwD) in a hospital.
Conducted surveys and in-depth interviews with PwD (n=73, n=24) and nurses (n=89, n=15) as part of the AIDING randomized controlled trial (NCT05590143).
Evaluated attitudes toward AID using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
Reported high acceptability of AID and CGM among both PwD and nurses.
Patients valued fewer fingersticks and automated insulin adjustments, while nurses recognized improved glycemic control with mixed impressions on practicality.
Stigma identified as a potential barrier to implementation, suggesting areas for further study.

Abstract

Introduction and Objective: Inpatient diabetes management with multiple daily injections is often suboptimal. Automated insulin delivery (AID) can improve glycemic control by dynamically adjusting insulin doses using glucose trend-predictive algorithms. We evaluated the acceptability of AID and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital setting among nurses and people with diabetes (PwD) naïve to AID. Methods: Surveys (PwD n=73; nurses n=89) and in-depth interviews (PwD n=24; nurses n=15) were conducted as part of the AIDING randomized controlled trial (NCT05590143). Measures assessed attitudes toward AID, including perceived burden, ethicality, effectiveness, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy, aligned with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Results: People with diabetes (mean age 55 years; 36% female; 58% Black, 37% White) and nurses reported high acceptability of AID and CGM (Table). PwD valued fewer fingersticks and automated insulin adjustments. Nurses perceived improved glycemic control with AID, while reporting mixed impressions of inpatient practicality and identifying perceived “noncompliance” as a consideration in patient selection. Conclusion: Both PwD and nurses reported positive experiences with diabetes technology, with high acceptability and perceived glycemic benefits of AID. Stigma warrants further study as a barrier to implementation. Disclosure J.M. Feeley: Research Support; Current; Dexcom, Inc. M.S. Hughes: Consultant; Current; Dexcom, Inc., Sanofi, Sequel Med Tech, LLC. S. Usman: None. R. Parab: None. N. Gonzalez: None. L. Chadalawada: None. S. Argeseanu Cunningham: None. E. Faulds: Research Support; Current; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Ended; Insulet Corporation. Other - Speaker; Ended; Medscape. G. Davis: Research Support; Current; Insulet Corporation, Sequel Med Tech. R. Lal: Consultant; Current; Abbott Diabetes, Adaptyx Biosciences. Consultant; Ended; Biolinq, Capillary Biomedical, Deep Valley Labs. Consultant; Current; Gluroo, Portal Diabetes, Tidepool. Advisory Panel; Ended; ProventionBio, Lilly, Sanofi, Rezolute. S. Brown: Research Support; Current; Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Ended; Roche Diabetes Care, Tolerion, Inc. F.J. Pasquel: Research Support; Current; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Ideal Medical Technologies. Research Support; Ended; Novo Nordisk, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Consultant; Ended; Insulet Corporation. M. Weber: None. Funding The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK138366), with device support from Insulet and Dexcom, Inc.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay