Investigating Diabetes Mellitus Patients' Experiences with Self Monitoring Blood Glucose Methods

• Main Authors: Dragamestianou, A. (Author), Galanis, P. (Author), Gallos, P. (Author), Kaitelidou, D. (Author), Karagkouni, I. (Author), Konstantakopoulou, O. (Author), Kontoteza, I.V (Author), Papazafiropoulou, A. (Author), Siskou, O. (Author)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: NLM (Medline) 2022
• Subjects: diabetes; experiences; Glucose monitoring; questionnaire
• Online Access: View Fulltext in Publisher

 Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common metabolic disease characterized by high blood glucose levels, and it is considered as a modern global threat. Glucose monitoring is an important component of modern therapy for diabetes mellitus. Self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) by finger pricking or flash glucose monitoring (FGM) allows individual planning of treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' experiences with self-monitoring blood glucose methods. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire (GME-Q), consisted of 22 items with an overall score ranging from 1 to 5 (higher score indicates better experiences). The study included adult patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM 1) or type 2 (DM 2). RESULTS: Out of 253 participants (mean age, 56.4 years), 65.6% were suffering from DM type 2 and 34.4% from DM type 1, whereas 48.6% were using SMBG and 49.8% FGM. The mean score of convenience and effectiveness were higher in the group of patients using FGM, while SMBG found to be more discreet. The results of the analysis suggested that there was no relation between gender and effectiveness, discreetness or convenience of the method used for glucose monitoring. Furthermore, participants with diabetes type 2 reported higher "convenient" and "discreetness" score than patients with diabetes type 1. The analysis also indicated that there was no relation between the age of the participants and the effectiveness, discreetness and convenience of any glucose monitoring method. CONCLUSIONS: Improved self-glucose monitoring experiences are an essential component to achieve effective management of patients suffering from both DM 1 and DM 2. More research should be conducted on the field of glucose monitoring experiences, related to the cost of the methods, the user's training and the ability to support insulin/diet calculations.