Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs) allow youths with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to achieve optimal glucose control [1]. Still, barriers related to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), such as catheter insertion-related issues, altered body shape, social acceptance [2], and to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as skin irritations, inaccurate readings, and excessive alarms [3,4,5], can lead to drop-out the AIDs [6]. Perceived benefits and burdens may predict user satisfaction and the sustained use of the novel technology [6]. Exploring the attitudes and feelings of youths with T1D and those of their caregivers towards AIDs, could help to individuate who is ready to accept and trust this new technology [6, 7] and contributes to enroll candidates for AIDs who are motivated and with proper expectations [6, 7].
According to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), analysis of youths and parents’ attitudes towards a technology device, including AIDs, should evaluate the following aspects: intention to use (as a measure of future acceptance), perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust. Semi-structured interviews based on the TAM and different questionnaires to assess expected AIDs acceptance have been developed [8,9,10,11,12,13] and have allowed diabetes care providers to tailor their education approach to the factors that concern the patient at that time, and to implement behavioral strategies supporting sustained use of the AID system [14].
However, these questionnaires have only been validated in English, and when used in the Italian population, the questions were translated with the assistance of native English speakers but not validated [10]. Therefore, this study aimed to create a questionnaire in Italian for expected AIDs acceptance based on the TAM model, starting from the questionnaire items available in the literature.
Subjects and methods
Development of the AP acceptance questionnaire
Step 1: literature review
A questionnaire review on the topic was performed in the literature, and the results were reported in a recently published paper [14]. We analyzed questionnaire items reported in previously published studies. We evaluated their recurrence as reported in Supplementary material S1 [9,10,11,12,13, 15], and we classified open and closed questions according to the TAM: (1) Intention to use; (2) Perceived usefulness and its determinants; (3) Perceived ease of use and its determinants; (4) Trust in the AP (Supplementary material S1).
Step 2: interview of patients and their caregivers
The pediatric diabetologists prepared a written introduction to the AID technology (RF, MM, EM), explaining CSII and CGM characteristics and the algorithm integrated into the pump, alarms, and safety issues (Supplementary material S2). The name “artificial pancreas” was preferred in the introduction and the questionnaire, as it is the most used term among our patients.
The open and closed questions collected during the analysis of measures available in the literature were used by our psychologists (SZ, DC, AA) as a topic guide to perform interviews addressed to 15 subjects with T1D followed up at three different centers (Trento, Verona and Chieti), aged 8–18 years, with diabetes duration > 1 year, on multiple daily injections (MDI) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (SAP) from at least six months, and to their parents.
The psychologists administered the interview after the written introduction to AIDs was presented (Supplementary material S2), and a prototype was visualized.
Step 3: writing of the closed questions
The open questions used during the interview were converted to closed questions and used with those derived from the interview. We divided these questions into five domains, adding a new one called “judgment by others” (or subjective norms) to the four ones proposed by the TAM model: (1) Intention to use; (2) Perceived usefulness and its determinants; (3) Judgement by others; (4) Perceived ease of use and its determinants; (5) Trust in the AP.
A total of 43 questions for children and 46 for parents were included, and a 5-point Likert scale was used. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The parents’ measure included three more items compared to the patients’ one: an item on the expectation to reduce severe hypoglycemia (item #8), another to reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia (item #9), and one about the increased risk of ketoacidosis (#46). The first version, 1.0, of the questionnaire was developed.
Measure testing on a pilot sample (cognitive debriefing)
To evaluate if the questions were formulated, version 1.0 of the questionnaire was tested on a small sample of the target population: 5 patients and their parents. The psychologists (SZ, CD, AA) asked the patients whether there were clarity issues, culturally inappropriate expressions, or difficulties in understanding the questions. The debriefing interviews involved paraphrasing each questionnaire question and indicating whether the participants needed help understanding the question or if any terms required clarification. Subsequently, the scientific panel discussed the feedback from the five patients. The panel accepted some proposals, and two sentences were rephrased; a new version based on the issues raised was developed (version 1.1, Supplementary materials 3 and 4).
Validation of the questionnaire
The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating center of Trento approved the study (A930, AP-acceptance), which followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed assents and consents were obtained by minors aged ≥ 12 and all parents before study entry. The pediatric diabetes centers participating in the study belonged to the Italian Society for Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes [16]. The involved centers were Trento, Verona, Napoli Federico II, Bologna, Novara, Genova, Messina, Ancona, and Chieti. The questionnaire was administered by the pediatric diabetologist and/or psychologist to all the patients who attended the centers in the period from September to December 2023 and who met the following inclusion criteria:
-
T1D, aged 8 to 18 years: we considered the lower limit of 8 years for understanding the questions, as previously reported in questionnaires like INSPIRE [13];
-
diabetes duration ≥ 12 months;
-
on multiple daily injections (MDI) or SAP (CSII and real-time or instant scanning CGM) for at least six months;
-
HbA1c < 10%.
-
fluent in Italian, evaluated as being able to express and read easily.
The exclusion criteria were:
-
subjects on CSII with predictive low glucose monitoring (PLGM), hybrid closed loop (HCL), or advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL);
-
complications related to T1D or other significant diseases or comorbidities.
Statistical analysis
Analyses were conducted using SAS v9.1.4. (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Items were measured using five-category scales. Considering the single items as quantitative variables, means, standard deviations (SD), and medians were calculated separately for young people and parents. Factor analysis used minimum residuals on the correlation matrix approach to determine the model best describing the data, always separately for young people and parents. For choosing the number of factors, eigenvalues ≥ 1 were the criterion. A sample size of at least 220 participants was sufficient to perform factor analysis, including at least five cases per item. Cronbach’s α coefficient (α = k x r /[1 + (k − 1) x r]; with k = number of items and r = mean correlation) was calculated for each item and, for the total of the items, keeping only the records for which all answers relating to each section were present. The aggregating dimensions of the AP future acceptance Italian version were evaluated by factor analysis (principal components). Furthermore, Spearman correlations between each item and all other items were calculated to identify any significant correlations between pairs of variables, with a correlation coefficient > 0.70 considered vital [17]. Finally, agreement between young people and parent scores was calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1 with 95% confidence intervals (CI)), considered more stable than Cohen’s kappa.
All variables are presented as frequencies, percentages, mean ± SD, and medians. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify the normality of distributions. The mean and SD of the item scores were calculated. The significance level was set to a p-value ≤ 0.05.
The overall score on the questionnaire for patients and parents will be calculated by obtaining a mean score across items for each subject after the reverse score calculation of items classified as hassles. Higher scores will indicate greater positive expectations for AIDs. The overall score on benefit and hassles items will be calculated by obtaining a mean score across items classified in each of the two categories.
Results
In total, 254 parents (182 mothers, 71.6%) and 254 children-adolescents (113 female, 55.5%) were recruited for the study (p < 0.00001). Fifteen couples of questionnaires were excluded because the anonymized code was misreported, and we could not match the pairs. Therefore, 239 questionnaire couples were analyzed for this study, and the subjects’ characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Reliability and factor analysis
Evaluation of completeness
Completeness was optimal for each item for subjects with T1D and parents (i.e., the maximum percentage of missing values was 0.4 in the group of subjects with T1D (only for item n. 42); the parents’ group reached 100% of items answered).
Internal reliability
Cronbach’s coefficients > 90% were recorded for all 43 items in the children-adolescents group and all 46 items in the parents’ group. The overall Cronbach’s coefficients were 0.92 and 0.93, indicating excellent internal consistency in both groups.
Factor analysis
For the AP measure, two factors emerged, both in the group of children-adolescents and in that of the parents: Benefits of AIDs (30 items for children-adolescents and 32 for parents) and hassles of AIDs (10 items for children-adolescents and 11 for parents). In both groups, the same remaining three items did not load on any factor (“I don’t think AIDs will be useful if with tube”, “I think it will not be simple to learn, but time by time it could be easier”, “I think I will need a training course before using AIDs” Table 2A). After the three items that did not load on a factor were deleted, the internal consistency of the total scale was alpha = 0.94 for subjects with T1D and 0.95 for parents.
Correlation analysis
The correlation analysis showed positive correlations between couples of items greater than 0.30 in many cases but never greater than 0.80. Even if some items are correlated to each other, they do not necessarily need to be eliminated because they have a specific interest. The three items that did not load on any factor are those that show the lowest correlation coefficients.
Agreement analysis
The Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1) was 0.699 (95% C.I. 0.689– 0.709), indicating a good agreement between the two evaluations (children-adolescents and parents). The descriptive statistics and reliability indices for the Artificial Pancreas for children-adolescents and parents are summarized in Table 2B.
Before the overall score calculation, the reverse score was calculated using the measures of patients and parents for items classified as hassles. The level of AP acceptance was more than neutral, as indicated by the mean overall score of 3.91 ± 0.47 and 3.99 ± 0.43 (p = 0.07) for youths and parents, respectively (possible score range 1 to 5, with a neutral score of 3.0). Parents reported higher scores in the benefit items than children-adolescents (p = 0.04).
Discussion
Through this study, we developed a new questionnaire based on the items available in the literature [9,10,11,12,13] and used in studies on AID acceptance [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. We demonstrated that the AP-acceptance questionnaire is a reliable and valid measure of expectancies regarding AIDs by subjects with T1D and their parents. It reveals a meaningful factor structure, good internal reliability, and agreement between parents and young people in evaluations.
It consists of 43 items in the children-adolescents group and 46 in the parents’ group. In line with previous validated AP acceptance questionnaires [9, 11], two primary measurement factors were isolated: benefits of AP (30 (y), 32 (p) items) and hassles of AP (10 (y), 11 (p) items), while three items (15, 27 and 38 in youths; 17, 29 and 40 in parents) did not load on any measurement factor and showed the lowest correlation coefficients. However, a 40 and 43-item questionnaire without the three items would not change the internal consistency of the questionnaire.
This questionnaire measured positive expectancies of what an AID can do, and above all, expected improvements in glycemic control and diabetes-specific well-being emerged from youths and their parents. As previously reported, intention to use AIDs could be considered a measure of future acceptance, and the level of AP acceptance was more than neutral [9]. Mean scores on the “benefits” were higher for patients/parents than “hassles”, indicating they had a positive attitude toward perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust.
This study presents the following strengths:
1) All the patients enrolled were familiar with CGM, as in Italy, subjects with T1D receive reimbursement for this device, differently from studies set in other countries [9]; therefore, conclusions of this study are generalizable to all the population we face in our offices; subjects enrolled in our study acknowledged the performance of this component of AIDs, and this was reflected in a more critical approach to the AIDs;
2) Even if individuals with SAP could be the most likely first candidates for AP systems, and they better know the limits of CSII and its influence on body perception, we decided to include not only subjects with T1D who were treated with CSII but also children and young people on MDI therapy, to avoid population bias selection, unlike previous reports [9].
The main limitation considered in interpreting the results of our study is the cross-sectional design, and future studies should evaluate correlations between AP scores and patients’ and/or technology characteristics.
In conclusion, our study provided the first validated questionnaire in Italian for AP acceptance. It 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.
Data availability
All databases generated for this study are included in the article.
Abbreviations
- AHCL:
-
Advanced hybrid closed loop
- AID:
-
Automated insulin delivery
- AP:
-
Artificial pancreas
- CGM:
-
Continuous glucose monitoring
- CSII:
-
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion
- HCL:
-
Hybrid closed loop
- MDI:
-
Multiple daily injections
- PLGM:
-
Predictive low glucose monitoring
- SAP:
-
Sensor-augmented pump
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
- T1D:
-
Type 1 diabetes
- TAM:
-
Technology Acceptance Model
References
Zeng B, Gao L, Yang Q, Jia H, Sun F (2023) Automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 46(12):2300–2307. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-0504
Rabbone I, Minuto N, Bonfanti R, Marigliano M, Cerutti F, Cherubini V, d’Annunzio G, Frongia AP, Iafusco D, Ignaccolo G, Lombardo F, Schiaffini R, Toni S, Tumini S, Zucchini S, Pistorio A, Scaramuzza AE, Italian Paediatric Pump Failure Study Group (2017) Insulin pump failures in Italian children with type 1 diabetes: retrospective 1-year cohort study. Diabet Med 34(5):621–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13294. E
Franceschi R, Micheli F, Mozzillo E, Cauvin V, Liguori A, Soffiati M, Giani E (2021) Intermittently scanned and continuous glucose monitor systems: a systematic review on psychological outcomes in pediatric patients. Front Pediatr 5:9:660173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.660173
Pauley ME, Berget C, Messer LH, Forlenza GP (2021) Barriers to uptake of insulin technologies and novel solutions. Med Devices (Auckl) 12:14:339–354. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S312858
Marigliano M, Pertile R, Mozzillo E, Troncone A, Maffeis C, Morotti E, Di Candia F, Fedi L, Iafusco D, Zanfardino A, Cauvin V, Maltoni G, Zucchini S, Cherubini V, Tiberi V, Minuto N, Bassi M, Rabbone I, Savastio S, Tinti D, Tornese G, Schiaffini R, Passanisi S, Lombardo F, Bonfanti R, Scaramuzza A, Franceschi R (2023) Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring is positively correlated with time in range in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 204:110895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110895
Forlenza GP, Messer LH, Berget C, Wadwa RP, Driscoll KA (2018) Biopsychosocial factors associated with satisfaction and sustained use of artificial pancreas technology and its components: a call to the technology field. Curr Diab Rep 26(11):114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-018-1078-1
Elleri D, Acerini CL, Allen JM, Hayes J, Pesterfield C, Wilinska ME, Dunger DB, Hovorka R (2010) Parental attitudes towards overnight closed-loop glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 12(1):35–39. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2009.0084
van Bon AC, Kohinor MJ, Hoekstra JB, von Basum G, deVries JH (2010) Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol 1;4(3):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681000400313
van Bon AC, Brouwer TB, von Basum G, Hoekstra JB, DeVries JH (2011) Future acceptance of an artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 13(7):731–736. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0013
Troncone A, Bonfanti R, Iafusco D, Rabbone I, Sabbion A, Schiaffini R, Galderisi A, Marigliano M, Rapini N, Rigamonti A, Tinti D, Vallone V, Zanfardino A, Boscari F, Del Favero S, Galasso S, Lanzola G, Messori M, Di Palma F, Visentin R, Calore R, Leal Y, Magni L, Losiouk E, Chernavvsky D, Quaglini S, Cobelli C, Bruttomesso D (2016) Evaluating the experience of children with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in an artificial pancreas clinical trial over multiple days in a diabetes camp setting. Diabetes Care 39(12):2158–2164. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1073
Bevier WC, Fuller SM, Fuller RP, Rubin RR, Dassau E, Doyle FJ 3rd, Jovanovič L, Zisser HC (2014) Artificial pancreas (AP) clinical trial participants’ acceptance of future AP technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 16(9):590–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0365
Oukes T, Blauw H, van Bon AC, DeVries JH, von Raesfeld AM (2019) Acceptance of the artificial pancreas: comparing the effect of technology readiness, product characteristics, and social influence between invited and self-selected respondents. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(5):899–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818823728
Weissberg-Benchell J, Shapiro JB, Hood K, Laffel LM, Naranjo D, Miller K, Barnard K (2019) Assessing patient-reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures. Diabet Med 36(5):644–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13930
Marigliano M, Mozzillo E, Mancioppi V, Di Candia F, Rosanio FM, Antonelli A, Nichelatti I, Maffeis C, Tumini S, Franceschi R (2023) Measures of patient-reported expectations, acceptance, and satisfaction using automated insulin delivery systems: a review. J Pers Med 22(7):1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071031
Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hood KK (2016) Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 28(4):852–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816650900
Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hood KK (2016) Diabetes Technology: Uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10(4):852–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816650900
Schober P, Bossers SM, Schwarte LA (2018) Statistical significance versus clinical importance of observed effect sizes: what do P values and confidence intervals really represent? Anesth Analg 126(3):1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002798
Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, Maahs DM, Wadwa RP, DeBoer M, Messer LH, Town M, Pinnata J, Kruse G, Buckingham BA, Cherñavvsky D (2019) Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 21(4):159–169. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0011
Grando MA, Bayuk M, Karway G, Corrette K, Groat D, Cook CB, Thompson B (2019) Patient perception and satisfaction with insulin pump system: Pilot user experience survey. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(6):1142–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819843146
Hood KK, Garcia-Willingham N, Hanes S, Tanenbaum ML, Ware J, Boughton CK, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, Tauschmann M, Denvir L, Thankamony A, Campbell F, Wadwa RP, Buckingham BA, Davis N, DiMeglio LA, Mauras N, Besser REJ, Ghatak A, Weinzimer SA, Fox DS, Kanapka L, Kollman C, Sibayan J, Beck RW, Hovorka R, DAN05 Consortium (2022) Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(12):2309–2318. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14815
Iturralde E, Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Suttiratana SC, Ambrosino JM, Ly TT, Maahs DM, Naranjo D, Walders-Abramson N, Weinzimer SA, Buckingham BA, Hood KK (2017) Expectations and attitudes of individuals with type 1 diabetes after using a hybrid closed loop system. Diabetes Educ 43(2):223–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721717697244
Kudva YC, Laffel LM, Brown SA, Raghinaru D, Pinsker JE, Ekhlaspour L, Levy CJ, Messer LH, Kovatchev BP, Lum JW, Beck RW, Gonder-Frederick L, iDCL Trial Research Group (2021) Patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of closed-loop control: the pivotal international diabetes closed-loop trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 23(10):673–683. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0089
Renard E, Tubiana-Rufi N, Bonnemaison-Gilbert E, Coutant R, Dalla-Vale F, Farret A, Poidvin A, Bouhours-Nouet N, Abettan C, Storey-London C, Donzeau A, Place J, Breton MD (2019) Closed-loop driven by control-to-range algorithm outperforms threshold-low-glucose-suspend insulin delivery on glucose control albeit not on nocturnal hypoglycaemia in prepubertal patients with type 1 diabetes in a supervised hotel setting. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(1):183–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13482
von dem Berge T, Remus K, Biester S, Reschke F, Klusmeier B, Adolph K, Holtdirk A, Thomas A, Kordonouri O, Danne T, Biester T (2022) In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(7):1319–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14706
Acknowledgements
We thank the families that agreed to participate in the study.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Verona within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work. RF, EM, and MM designed the study; SZ, CD, and AA conducted the interviews—all the authors, except Riccardo Pertile (RP), enrolled patients in this study. RP performed statistical analysis. RF, EM, and MM wrote the manuscript. All the authors discussed, critically edited, and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The local Institutional Review Board approved the current study. The study was performed per the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from each participant and parent/legal guardian.
Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Managed by Agostino Consoli.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Franceschi, R., Pertile, R., Marigliano, M. et al. Future acceptance of automated insulin delivery systems in youths with type 1 diabetes: validation of the Italian artificial pancreas-acceptance measure. Acta Diabetol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9