Diabetes Education and Support Tele-Visit Needs Differ in Duration, Content, and Satisfaction in Older Versus Younger Adults

Barriers and Facilitators of Self-Management in Older People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review Focusing on Cognitive Impairment

Over the past decades, life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes has increased considerably, which brings potential challenges due to the process of aging. Cognitive aging and dementia, as well as reductions in visual acuity, hearing and dexterity, can influence the frequency and quality of daily self-management activities, including medication taking and insulin dosing, glucose self-monitoring, and healthy eating. This can increase the risk for hypo- and hyperglycemic events, which, in turn, may contribute to cognitive decline. Because there is a gap in understanding the barriers and facilitators of self-management in older adults with type 1 diabetes and the relationship to cognitive functioning, the authors 1) review the available literature on cognitive aging and type 1 diabetes, 2) describe what self-management in later adulthood entails and the cognitive functions required for effective self-management behaviors, 3) analyze the interaction between type 1 diabetes, cognition, aging, and self-management behaviors, and 4) describe the barriers and facilitators for self-management throughout the life span and how they may differ for older people. Potential evidence-based practices that could be developed for older adults with type 1 diabetes are discussed. There is need for further studies that clarify the impact of aging on T1D self-management, ultimately to improve diabetes care and quality of life.

Remote hearing-aid delivery and support: perspectives of patients and their hearing care providers

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of patients and hearing care providers (HCPs) about an adult remote hearing-aid delivery service implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Service evaluation via surveys. The patient survey measured satisfaction with the service, perceived hearing-aid handling skills, and preferences for future services. The HCP survey explored the impact of teleaudiology on outcomes compared to in-person care and factors important for successful teleaudiology.

STUDY SAMPLE

378 patients and 14 HCPs.

RESULTS

Patients were highly satisfied with the service and self-reported good hearing-aid handling skills. However, 2 in 3 patients said they would prefer a future hearing-aid fitting to be in-person rather than remote. HCPs thought teleaudiology had positive impacts on convenience, accessibility, and flexibility, but negative impacts on communication, rapport, and the quality of care. HCPs considered computer literacy and individual preferences to be important for successful remote care; the age of the patient was considered less important.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were generally highly satisfied with the service and for 1 in 3 it was their preferred mode of future hearing-aid fitting. Future services should be aware that a one-size-fits-all approach will not satisfy all patients and that teleaudiology should be offered on the basis of individual preference.

Use of Telemedicine in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Do Age and Use of Diabetes-Related Technology Matter?

Objective: Older adults are generally less proficient in technology use compared with younger adults. Data on telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic in older persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the association of telemedicine with the use of diabetes-related technology are limited. We evaluated care delivery to older adults compared with younger adults with T1D in a prepandemic and pandemic period. Methods: Data from electronic health records were evaluated for visit types (in-person, phone, and video) from two sequential 12-month intervals: prepandemic (April 2019-March 2020) and pandemic (April 2020-March 2021). Results: Data from 2,832 unique adults with T1D were evaluated in two age cohorts: younger (40-64 years) and older (≥65 years). Half of each group used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), whereas 54% of the younger and 37% of the older cohort used pump therapy (p < 0.001). During the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period, visit frequency increased in both the younger (0.65 vs. 0.76 visits/patient/quarter; p < 0.01) and older (0.72 vs. 0.80 visits/patient/quarter; p < 0.01) cohorts. During the pandemic, older adults used more phone visits compared with younger adults (48% vs. 32%; p = 0.001). Patients using either pump therapy or CGM were more likely to use video visits compared with phone visits in both younger (41% vs. 24%; p < 0.001) and older cohorts (53% vs. 42%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults using diabetes-related technologies, independent of age, accessed more video visits than those not using devices. Telemedicine visits appeared to maintain continuity of care for younger and older adults with T1D, supporting the future of a hybrid-care model.

Assessment of Glucose Monitoring Adherence in Medicare Beneficiaries with Insulin-Treated Diabetes

Background: We investigated the potential associations between race/ethnicity and adherence to prescribed glucose monitoring in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and how adherence to the method used impacted diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations and associated costs among beneficiaries with intensive insulin-treated diabetes. Methods: This 12-month retrospective analysis utilized Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who used intensive insulin therapy from January through December 2018 and classified them into four groups: (1) persons using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM), (2) persons using any method of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) who followed prescribed use patterns (adherent), (3) persons who were prescribed BGM but were nonadherent in its use, and (4) no record of any form of BGM. Analyses compared these groups and the role that comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), and race/ethnicity played on group assignment, diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations, and costs. Results: Among the 1,329,061 persons assessed, 38.14% had no record of glucose monitoring and 35.42% were BGM nonadherent. Similarly, among the 629,514 beneficiaries with a CCI risk score of ≥2, 466,646 (74.13%) were either nonadherent to BGM or had no monitoring record. The percentage of White (3.65%) rtCGM adherent beneficiaries was significantly larger than Black (1.58%) and Hispanic (1.28%) beneficiaries, both P < 0.0001. Hospitalizations and costs were higher for Black and Hispanic beneficiaries versus Whites within the risk score ≥ 2 group regardless of glucose monitoring method. Conclusions: Race is associated with increased hospitalizations and costs associated with diabetes care and absence of any form of BGM was associated with higher rates of comorbidities. Persons of color were less likely to use rtCGM despite Medicare coverage. New initiatives that promote diabetes self-management education and support services are needed to improve utilization of glucose monitoring within the Medicare diabetes population.