{"doi":"10.1089/dia.2019.0152","title":"Satisfaction with the Use of Different Technologies for Insulin Delivery and Glucose Monitoring Among Adults with Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: 2-Year Follow-Up in the HypoCOMPaSS Randomized Clinical Trial","abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In the HypoCOMPaSS trial, adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycemia were randomized to compare insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Our aim was to investigate participants' satisfaction with these technologies at 6-month randomized, controlled trial (RCT) endpoint and at 2-year follow-up.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Participants completed the Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire subscales “device delivery” and “hypoglycemia control”; and Glucose Monitoring Experience Questionnaire, assessing “convenience”, “effectiveness”, “intrusiveness”, and “total satisfaction.” We assessed change over time and between-group differences by insulin and monitoring modalities.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Participants (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">N</jats:italic>\n                       = 96) were 64% women, aged 49 ± 12 years, with a diabetes duration of 29 ± 12 years. At 6 months, participants reported improvements compared with baseline (all\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       &lt; 0.001) in satisfaction with insulin “delivery device” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r =</jats:italic>\n                       0.39) and “hypoglycemia control” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.52), and trends toward significance in perceived “effectiveness” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r =</jats:italic>\n                       0.42) and “intrusiveness” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.27) of monitoring device (but not “convenience”,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.139). All improvements were sustained at 2 years. At 6 months, the only difference between arms was that greater satisfaction with insulin “delivery device” was reported in the CSII group compared with MDI (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       &lt; 0.001,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.40). No between-group differences were observed at 2 years.\n                    </jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Overall, significant improvements in participant satisfaction with diabetes technologies were observed over the 6-month RCT, in all domains except “convenience,” and maintained at 2 years. Although HypoCOMPaSS demonstrated noninferiority of SMBG versus CGM, and MDI versus CSII in terms of biomedical outcomes, detailed assessments confirm that participants' satisfaction with delivery device was greater in those allocated to CSII than MDI.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>","journal":"Diabetes Technology &amp; Therapeutics","year":2019,"id":652785,"datarank":0.4566783656585135,"base_score":3.044522437723423,"endowment":3.044522437723423,"self_citation_contribution":0.4566783656585135,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.4566783656585135,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":20,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1702997,"name":"Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703000,"name":"Stuart A. Little","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":841321,"name":"Lalantha Leelarathna","orcid":"0000-0001-9602-1962","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703004,"name":"Emma Walkinshaw","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703005,"name":"Horn Kai Tan","orcid":null,"position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703008,"name":"Anita Bowes","orcid":null,"position":6,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":841297,"name":"David Kerr","orcid":"0000-0003-1335-1857","position":7,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703011,"name":"Daniel Flanagan","orcid":null,"position":8,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703012,"name":"Simon R. Heller","orcid":null,"position":9,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703013,"name":"Mark L. Evans","orcid":null,"position":10,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1703014,"name":"James A.M. Shaw","orcid":null,"position":11,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":921528,"name":"Jane Speight","orcid":"0000-0002-1204-6896","position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Satisfaction with the Use of Different Technologies for Insulin Delivery and Glucose Monitoring Among Adults with Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: 2-Year Follow-Up in the HypoCOMPaSS Randomized Clinical Trial","abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In the HypoCOMPaSS trial, adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycemia were randomized to compare insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Our aim was to investigate participants' satisfaction with these technologies at 6-month randomized, controlled trial (RCT) endpoint and at 2-year follow-up.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Participants completed the Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire subscales “device delivery” and “hypoglycemia control”; and Glucose Monitoring Experience Questionnaire, assessing “convenience”, “effectiveness”, “intrusiveness”, and “total satisfaction.” We assessed change over time and between-group differences by insulin and monitoring modalities.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Participants (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">N</jats:italic>\n                       = 96) were 64% women, aged 49 ± 12 years, with a diabetes duration of 29 ± 12 years. At 6 months, participants reported improvements compared with baseline (all\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       &lt; 0.001) in satisfaction with insulin “delivery device” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r =</jats:italic>\n                       0.39) and “hypoglycemia control” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.52), and trends toward significance in perceived “effectiveness” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r =</jats:italic>\n                       0.42) and “intrusiveness” (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.27) of monitoring device (but not “convenience”,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.139). All improvements were sustained at 2 years. At 6 months, the only difference between arms was that greater satisfaction with insulin “delivery device” was reported in the CSII group compared with MDI (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic>\n                       &lt; 0.001,\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">r</jats:italic>\n                       = 0.40). No between-group differences were observed at 2 years.\n                    </jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Overall, significant improvements in participant satisfaction with diabetes technologies were observed over the 6-month RCT, in all domains except “convenience,” and maintained at 2 years. Although HypoCOMPaSS demonstrated noninferiority of SMBG versus CGM, and MDI versus CSII in terms of biomedical outcomes, detailed assessments confirm that participants' satisfaction with delivery device was greater in those allocated to CSII than MDI.</jats:p>\n                  </jats:sec>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":3.044522437723423,"endowment":3.044522437723423,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"31335201","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W2962700419","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"Medical Research Council","grant_id":"MC_UU_12012/5","title":null}],"total_grants":1,"fwci":1.4341,"citation_percentile":0.82678192,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2019,"count":1},{"year":2020,"count":1},{"year":2021,"count":4},{"year":2022,"count":4},{"year":2023,"count":5},{"year":2024,"count":3},{"year":2025,"count":2}],"oa_status":"green","license":"cc-by","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Satisfaction_with_the_use_of_different_technologies_for_insulin_delivery_and_glucose_monitoring_among_adults_with_long-standing_type_1_diabetes_and_problematic_hypoglycemia_2-Year_follow-up_in_the_HypoCOMPaSS_randomized_clinical_trial/20747794","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Satisfaction_with_the_use_of_different_technologies_for_insulin_delivery_and_glucose_monitoring_among_adults_with_long-standing_type_1_diabetes_and_problematic_hypoglycemia_2-Year_follow-up_in_the_HypoCOMPaSS_randomized_clinical_trial/20747794","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full-xml/10.1089/dia.2019.0152","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/dia.2019.0152","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0152","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335201","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/5f3c0833-cc14-4a4c-addd-c921acc96aff","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/satisfaction-with-the-use-of-different-technologies-for-insulin-delivery-and-glucose-monitoring-among-adults-with-longstanding-type-1-diabetes-and-problematic-hypoglycemia(5f3c0833-cc14-4a4c-addd-c921acc96aff).html","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Diabetes Management and Research","Pancreatic function and diabetes","Diabetes and associated disorders","Adult","Aged","Blood Glucose","Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring","Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1","Female","Follow-Up Studies","Glycated Hemoglobin","Humans","Hypoglycemia","Hypoglycemic Agents","Insulin","Insulin Infusion Systems","Male","Middle Aged","Patient Satisfaction","Treatment Outcome","Young Adult"],"mesh_terms":["Adult","Aged","Blood Glucose","Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1","Female","Follow-Up Studies","Glycated Hemoglobin","Humans","Hypoglycemia","Hypoglycemic Agents","Insulin","Insulin Infusion Systems","Male","Middle Aged","Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring","Treatment Outcome","Patient Satisfaction","Young Adult"],"keywords":["Medicine","Hypoglycemia","Insulin delivery","Randomized controlled trial","Diabetes mellitus","Type 1 diabetes","Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring","Insulin","Type 2 diabetes","Continuous glucose monitoring","Patient satisfaction","Intensive care medicine","Pediatrics","Internal medicine","Endocrinology","Surgery","Technology","Satisfaction","Glucose Monitoring"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Good health and well-being"}],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-10T17:00:34.330938Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}