Table 1.
Participant characteristics.
| Characteristic | Type 1 diabetes (n=10) | Type 2 diabetes (n=8) | |||
| Sex (female), n (%) | 5 (50) | 2 (25) | |||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 47 (16) | 61 (9) | |||
| Recruitment site, n (%) | |||||
|
|
Cambridge | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | ||
|
|
King’s College London | 3 (30) | 4 (50) | ||
|
|
Dundee | 0 (0) | 1 (12) | ||
|
|
Sheffield | 6 (60) | 3 (38) | ||
| Employment, n (%) | |||||
|
|
Full time | 5 (50) | 3 (38) | ||
|
|
Part time | 1 (10) | 1 (12) | ||
|
|
Unemployed (but not actively looking for work) | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | ||
|
|
Retired | 3 (30) | 4 (50) | ||
| Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (Gold score of >4), n (%) | 5 (50) | 1 (12) | |||
| Diabetes duration (y), mean (SD) | 26 (16) | 16 (8) | |||
| HbA1c (mmol/mol), mean (SD) | 58.06 (13.54) | 57.19 (20.77) | |||
| HbA1c (%), mean (SD) | 7.46 (1.24) | 7.38 (1.90) | |||
| Glucose monitoring modality, n (%) | |||||
|
|
Flash | 5 (50) | 2 (25) | ||
|
|
Finger prick | 5 (50) | 6 (75) | ||
| App check-in completion rates (%), mean (SD) | |||||
|
|
Morning check-ins | 85.14 (9.48) | 86.43 (10.66) | ||
|
|
Afternoon check-ins | 75.29 (11.35) | 86.79 (11.16) | ||
|
|
Evening check-ins | 85.00 (7.66) | 94.64 (5.70) | ||
|
|
Total completion rate | 81.81 (8.37) | 89.29 (8.76) | ||
| Web-based survey ratingsa, mean (SD) | |||||
|
|
Motivation to use the check-ins | 7.80 (1.62) | 8.88 (1.13) | ||
|
|
Relevance of the check-in questions | 7.20 (1.93) | 8.50 (1.41) | ||
|
|
Understandability of the check-in questions | 7.80 (2.15) | 8.75 (1.28) | ||
|
|
Ease or difficulty of learning how to use the check-ins | 7.40 (2.22) | 9.38 (0.74) | ||
|
|
Design or look of the check-ins | 7.50 (1.43) | 8.75 (1.16) | ||
|
|
Overall ability to capture the true impact of hypoglycemia | 6.60 (1.65) | 7.38 (1.60) | ||
aPossible ratings: 0 to 10. Higher ratings indicate more positive experiences. The full questions and response options are available in Multimedia Appendix 1.