Examining inequities in the use of Continuous Glucose Monitors Among People (Preprint)

Authors:
Preprint
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
BACKGROUND Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers clinical and behavioural benefits for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), including improved glycaemic control and enhanced self-management. However, important evidence gaps remain regarding whether CGM use is equitably distributed across patient groups and whether OBJECTIVE To examine the relationship between CGM use among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a range of patient characteristics, including socio-demographic factors linked to health inequities, digital health literacy, clinical characteristics, and service utilisation. METHODS A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in November 2024 among adults in the UK with self-reported type 2 diabetes (T2D), recruited via the YouGov panel. The primary outcome was self-reported CGM use. Predictor variables included PROGRESS-Plus characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, religion, education, occupation, household income, disability, and social engagement), digital health literacy (eHEALS scale), clinical characteristics (disease duration, current treatment, and complications), overall health status (number of long-term conditions), and healthcare utilisation (frequency of visits). Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were used to examine associations between CGM use and patient characteristics. RESULTS Among 403 participants, 12.7% reported CGM use. Nearly half of participants were aged 65 years or older, and 56.80% were male. Most participants were White 83.90% and lived in urban areas. Higher odds of CGM use were observed among insulin users (OR=3.80, 95% CI: 1.6–9.22, p<0.001). No other demographic, clinical, or service utilisation variables were statistically significantly associated with CGM use. CONCLUSIONS CGM use was primarily driven by insulin therapy, consistent with established clinical pathways within the National Health Service that prioritise access for this group. No significant variation was observed across demographic, socioeconomic, or health literacy-related characteristics, suggesting no clear evidence of inequalities in this sample. These findings indicate potentially equitable access, although further research in larger and more diverse populations is needed to confirm these patterns.

This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit: