Skip to main content
SMFM 2024 Pregnancy Meeting Main banner
Final Program


Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Additional registration fee required
Additional registration fee required
Faculty have requested this content not be shared on social media
Faculty have requested this content not be shared on social media
CME Credit Offered
CME Credit Offered
Poster Icons
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee
No Social Media
No Social Media
Back
Q&A

Diabetes

Poster Session 1

(323) Satisfaction with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Tuesday, February 13, 2024
10:30 AM – 12:00 PM  
Location: Prince George's Exhibit Hall CDE, Lower Atrium Level
Objective:

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves pregnancy outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Given rapid uptake of CGM in pregnancies complicated by both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, our objective was to determine if CGM satisfaction and use differed between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional survey study of 100 patients with pregestational diabetes who used Dexcom G6 CGM during pregnancy and received prenatal care at a single tertiary care center (2021-2023). Participants completed the validated 15-question Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS) and other questions about CGM use. The primary outcome was high satisfaction with CGM, defined as total GMSS score of 4 or greater (calculated as average of all questions on 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included GMSS subscales, frequency of CGM app use (< 6 times/day, 6-10 times/day, all the time), and CGM features used (numbers only, arrows or graphs, both arrows and graphs). Outcomes were compared between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and logistic and ordinal regression estimated the association between type 2 diabetes and outcomes.

Results:

Of 100 surveyed patients, 45 had type 1 and 55 had type 2 diabetes. Patients with type 1 diabetes were more likely to use CGM before pregnancy and use insulin pump. CGM satisfaction did not differ between type 1 and type 2 diabetes (74.5% vs 56.6%; aOR 0.54, 95%CI 0.21-1.36; Figure). High openness, low behavioral burden, low emotional burden, and high worthwhileness also did not differ between groups after adjustment for CGM use before pregnancy (Figure). Reported CGM app use was high and did not differ between groups (aOR 0.80, 95%CI 0.33-1.95). Patients with type 2 diabetes were less likely to use arrows and/or graphs on CGM app compared to type 1 diabetes (aOR 0.34, 95%CI 0.11-0.98).

Conclusion:

In this cohort, patients with type 2 diabetes appear to be similarly satisfied with CGM compared to those with type 1 diabetes. Future efforts focused on CGM education for new users may help increase use of CGM app features, maximize satisfaction and minimize technology burden.