TY - JOUR
T1 - Future acceptance of automated insulin delivery systems in youths with type 1 diabetes
T2 - validation of the Italian artificial pancreas-acceptance measure
AU - Franceschi, Roberto
AU - Pertile, Riccardo
AU - Marigliano, Marco
AU - Mozzillo, Enza
AU - Maffeis, Claudio
AU - Zaffani, Silvana
AU - Dusini, Carlotta
AU - Antonelli, Annalisa
AU - Candia, Francesca Di
AU - Maltoni, Giulio
AU - Cantarelli, Erika
AU - Minuto, Nicola
AU - Bassi, Marta
AU - Rabbone, Ivana
AU - Savastio, Silvia
AU - Passanisi, Stefano
AU - Lombardo, Fortunato
AU - Cherubini, Valentino
AU - Saltarelli, Maria Alessandra
AU - Tumini, Stefano
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Aim: The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to examine the future acceptance of Automatic insulin delivery systems (AIDs), their perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust in the device in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: A questionnaire in Italian, based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was developed to examine intention to use AIDs, considered as a measure of future acceptance, and its determinants to use the system. A total of 43 questions for children and 46 for parents were included, and a 5-point Likert scale was used. Results: 239 subjects with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) and their parents completed the questionnaire. The completion rate was excellent, with almost 100% of items answered. The overall Cronbach’s coefficient for children and adolescents was 0.92 and 0.93 for parents, indicating excellent internal consistency in both groups. Parent-youth agreement was 0.699 (95% confidence interval: 0.689–0.709), indicating a good agreement between the two evaluations. Factor analysis identified measurement factors for the “artificial pancreas (AP)-acceptance labeled benefits and hassles of AIDs, and the internal consistency of the total scale was alpha = 0.94 for subjects with T1D and 0.95 for parents. The level of AP acceptance was more than neutral: 3.91 ± 0.47 and 3.99 ± 0.43 (p = 0.07) for youths and parents, respectively (possible score range 1 to 5, neutral score is 3.0). Parents reported higher scores in the benefit items than children-adolescents (p = 0.04). Conclusions: We developed a new questionnaire based on the items available in the literature, and we demonstrated that the “AP-acceptance” reveals a meaningful factor structure, good internal reliability, and agreement between parent–young people evaluations. This measure could be a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers to assess AP acceptance in pediatric patients with T1D and their parents. This patient profiling approach could help to enroll candidates for AIDs with proper expectations and who most likely will benefit from the system.
AB - Aim: The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to examine the future acceptance of Automatic insulin delivery systems (AIDs), their perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust in the device in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: A questionnaire in Italian, based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was developed to examine intention to use AIDs, considered as a measure of future acceptance, and its determinants to use the system. A total of 43 questions for children and 46 for parents were included, and a 5-point Likert scale was used. Results: 239 subjects with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) and their parents completed the questionnaire. The completion rate was excellent, with almost 100% of items answered. The overall Cronbach’s coefficient for children and adolescents was 0.92 and 0.93 for parents, indicating excellent internal consistency in both groups. Parent-youth agreement was 0.699 (95% confidence interval: 0.689–0.709), indicating a good agreement between the two evaluations. Factor analysis identified measurement factors for the “artificial pancreas (AP)-acceptance labeled benefits and hassles of AIDs, and the internal consistency of the total scale was alpha = 0.94 for subjects with T1D and 0.95 for parents. The level of AP acceptance was more than neutral: 3.91 ± 0.47 and 3.99 ± 0.43 (p = 0.07) for youths and parents, respectively (possible score range 1 to 5, neutral score is 3.0). Parents reported higher scores in the benefit items than children-adolescents (p = 0.04). Conclusions: We developed a new questionnaire based on the items available in the literature, and we demonstrated that the “AP-acceptance” reveals a meaningful factor structure, good internal reliability, and agreement between parent–young people evaluations. This measure could be a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers to assess AP acceptance in pediatric patients with T1D and their parents. This patient profiling approach could help to enroll candidates for AIDs with proper expectations and who most likely will benefit from the system.
KW - AID
KW - Acceptance
KW - Adolescents
KW - Artificial pancreas
KW - CSII
KW - Child
KW - Insulin pump
KW - Technology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85200983442&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9
DO - 10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9
M3 - Article
SN - 0940-5429
JO - Acta Diabetologica
JF - Acta Diabetologica
ER -