Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Clinical Diabetes

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Diabetes
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
Feature Articles

Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool

  1. Nicole Ehrhardt⇑ and
  2. Enas Al Zaghal
  1. Division of Endocrinology, George Washington University, Washington, DC
  1. Corresponding author: Nicole Ehrhardt, nehrhardt{at}mfa.gwu.edu
Clinical Diabetes 2020 Apr; 38(2): 126-131. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd19-0037
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use may lead to behavioral modifications in food selection and physical activity, but there are limited data on the utility of CGM in facilitating lifestyle changes. This article describes an 18-item survey developed to explore whether patients currently using CGM believe the technology has caused them to change their behavior.

KEY POINTS

  • ≫ Ninety percent of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) users felt that its use contributed to a healthier lifestyle.

  • ≫ Forty-seven percent of CGM users reported being more likely to go for a walk or do physical activity if they saw a rise in their blood glucose.

  • ≫ Eighty-seven percent of CGM users felt that they modified their food choices based on CGM use.

  • ≫ More research is needed into CGM as a behavior modification tool for diet and exercise in individuals with diabetes or prediabetes.

In the United States, an estimated 30.3 million people (9.4% of the population) have diabetes (1). A recent report noted that economic costs of diabetes increased by 26% from 2012 to 2017 (2). Macro- and microvascular complications from uncontrolled diabetes and multiple psychosocial factors contribute not only to the cost of diabetes, but also to quality of life deficits for those living with the disease (3).

Exercise has been shown to improve blood glucose control, reduce cardiovascular risk factors, contribute to weight loss, and improve well-being (4,5). Even low-intensity exercise improves glycemic control over 24 hours (6,7) and lowers A1C levels regardless of weight loss (8). Thus, guidelines from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and other professional societies recommend that adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes perform at least 150 minutes/week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity (9,10). Despite these guidelines, 36.1% of U.S. adults with diabetes report having no physical activity within the previous 30 days (11), and how to motivate patients with diabetes to attempt regular exercise remains an open question. One study on motivation for exercise reported that exercise expectations are formed individually in accordance with what most people recognize as an “appropriate” level of physical activity and that there is “potential for improving exercise management by stimulating intrinsic motivation” (12).

Similarly, food choices also affect glycemic control, and limiting carbohydrate consumption and choosing high-quality (i.e., high-fiber, low–glycemic index [GI]) foods may improve glucose levels because higher-GI foods cause greater glycemic responses (13). However, data are mixed regarding the benefit of recommending low-GI foods (14–16). Current ADA dietary recommendations focus more on individualizing meal plans and conclude that, “there is not a one-size-fits-all eating pattern” for individuals with diabetes. The ADA no longer recommends specific total meal or daily carbohydrate intake levels, and there are mixed messages about low-GI diets (17). Yet, the GI does provide a good summary of postprandial glycemia (14,18–20) and, coupled with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), it may be a useful tool for patients to better understand meal-related glycemic fluctuations.

Despite the controversy over food composition, most would generally agree that both food choices and physical activity affect glucose regulation, although responses may vary among individuals. Thus, what may be missing for individuals is direct feedback on their lifestyle choices. Real-time CGM captures nutritional intake and physical activity performance and may provide both positive and negative reinforcements of behavior, leading to sustained changes in lifestyle. However, there is limited literature on patients’ perceptions of how CGM influences their behavior. We conducted a survey of patients currently using CGM to assess their perceptions of how its use affects their lifestyle choices.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients with diabetes using CGM perceived that its use influences their food choices and physical activity.

Research Design and Methods

This study was reviewed and approved by the George Washington University institutional review board. We designed an 18-item questionnaire for current CGM users with any type of diabetes to determine their perceptions of how CGM affects their nutrition and physical activity choices. The survey asked questions about food choices, physical activity, and patients’ perception of change after using CGM (Figure 1). Data were collected by paper survey at an academic endocrine center over a 6-month period. Patients were recruited on an as-seen basis and given the survey anonymously. Those who declined participation were not included. Demographic data included age, sex, reported A1C, insulin pump or multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimen use, type of CGM device used, and duration of CGM use. Responses to the survey were collated and analyzed by descriptive statistics using Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). Results are presented below as either number or percentage of patients.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

CGM questionnaire. Demographic questions included in the survey are not shown.

Results

A total of 40 participants completed the survey. Mean age was 36 years (range 19–68) and mean BMI was 27.8 kg/m2 (SD 5.2). Seventy-eight percent of the participants (n = 31) used an insulin pump. Mean reported A1C was 7.5% (range 5.5–9.9). Fifty-five percent of the participants (n = 22) used a Dexcom CGM device, 40% (n = 16) used a Medtronic device, and 5% (n = 2) did not provide information on the type of CGM system they used. Mean duration of CGM use was >3 years (range <3 months to >3 years) (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants

Eighty-seven percent of participants (n = 35) stated that their food choices changed after using CGM. Most participants either limited (15% [n = 6]) or never drank (67.5% [n = 27]) sugared beverages before CGM use. Regarding exclusion of cereals and rice from their diet, 45% of participants (n = 18) already excluded cereal before CGM use, and 55% (n = 22) made no changes in rice consumption after CGM use. On the other hand, 15% of participants (n = 6) and 22.5% of participants (n = 9) did exclude cereals and rice, respectively, after using CGM. When asked if they noticed how different food choices affected their blood glucose levels, 87.5% of participants (n = 35) reported that they did notice, 7.5% (n = 3) said they did not notice, and 5% (n = 2) were unsure. Half of the participants (n = 20) reported already reading nutrition labels for fiber content before CGM use, 15.0% (n = 6) felt that they started reading labels for fiber content after CGM use, 30% (n = 12) did not feel that CGM use led them to read labels for fiber content, and 5% (n = 2) were unsure. After CGM use, 42.5% of the participants (n = 17) felt that they were more active, 27.5% (n = 11) reported already being active before CGM use, 22.5% (n = 9) said they made no change in activity as a result of CGM use, and 7.5% (n = 3) were unsure. Increased likelihood of going for a walk or doing physical activity after a meal if CGM showed rising blood glucose levels was reported by 47.5% of participants (n = 19), 35% (n = 14) said they made no such change based on CGM, 12.5% (n = 5) already took such action before using CGM, and 5% (n = 2) were unsure. Overall 90% (n = 36) reported that CGM use contributed to a healthier lifestyle (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Key Survey Findings

Discussion

Education to support patient self-management and behavior modification is widely recognized as a cornerstone of diabetes care. The empowerment approach to diabetes care encompasses three guiding principles: 1) diabetes is a patient-managed disease and patients make the majority of daily decisions; 2) the patient-provider relationship is one of collaboration; and 3) when patients set their own self-management priorities, they are more likely to be motivated to initiate and sustain necessary behavior changes (21). Several studies about chronic disease management have shown that patient engagement enhances results (22).

Research has also shown that structured, frequent glucose monitoring (seven to eight times per day) improves glycemic control (23). Real-time CGM provides a full picture of glucose trends, especially overnight and after meals, that may prompt positive behavior changes (24). In two recent, large studies involving people with type 1 diabetes, CGM use improved glycemic parameters. In the DIaMonD study, participants using real-time CGM showed increased time in the target glucose range (70–180 mg/dL) of 1.3 additional hours (+76 min), a 4% decrease in overall glycemic variability, and a 40% reduction in severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL) (25). The GOLD study also showed decreased standard deviation of blood glucose with CGM (68.49 vs 77.23 mg/dL, P  <0.001), as well as decreased mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (26). However, data are limited regarding specifically how CGM improves glycemic variability in those not taking insulin with meals and what aspects of healthy behaviors CGM use may influence and thus improve glycemic control. Even the most recent CGM studies in type 1 and type 2 diabetes focused on A1C improvement and decreasing hypoglycemia but did not assess nutrition or exercise changes around CGM use (27–30).

Nonetheless, CGM has become more commonly used to study the impacts of physical activity, food, and medication on glycemia. One study highlighted the benefit of sustained glycemic control with low-intensity exercise using CGM (6). Another study used CGM to show that walking after meals was more beneficial to average 24-hour glucose levels than 45 minutes of continuous daily walking (7), and a more recent study in those at risk for developing diabetes found that moderate postmeal walking significantly improves 24-hour glycemic control (31). Without specific instruction on exercise, 47% of our survey participants noted that they were more likely to go for a walk after meals, an action that has been shown to improve the daily glycemic profile.

Similarly, CGM has been used to show the impact of specific foods and dietary choices. One study, for example, showed improved glycemic control with brown versus white rice and even more benefit with the consumption of glutinous brown rice (32). A more recent study demonstrated that a low-carbohydrate breakfast improved glycemic variability over 24 hours (33). Eighty-seven percent of our patients noticed glucose changes from their food choices. However, many participants had already omitted or limited certain foods before using CGM. We believe this is likely because of the duration of their disease. We hypothesis that CGM could have an even greater impact on food choices if used sooner after diagnosis.

Despite CGM becoming a more common means of assessing the effects of dietary inventions or exercise, the use of CGM to provide real-time feedback as part of interventions has been limited. As we have discussed previously (34), only one study has been performed using real-time CGM in an intervention to increase physical activity, and another study used blinded CGM coupled with counseling on the resulting CGM data to bring about improvement in physical activity (35,36). Research is even more limited on the use of CGM in interventions addressing the processes of behavior change such as goal-setting and self-efficacy with regard to physical activity (37). Research is also scarce with regard to CGM coupled with diet interventions, and there has been only one small pilot study looking at the use of real-time CGM with a low-GI diet (38).

As discussed earlier, the recent large studies of CGM in type 1 diabetes and studies in which patients with type 2 diabetes had access to real-time glucose data (either through real-time or intermittent flash CGM technology) have focused on A1C and frequency of hypoglycemia (30,39), lack any assessment of nutrition or activity, and have been performed with patients using MDI insulin regimens or insulin pumps. There has not been a study involving patients who are either not on insulin or only using basal insulin since our publication in 2011 showing initial A1C improvement and a sustained glycemic benefit with no escalation of medications at 12 months with the use of serial intermittent real-time CGM (40). However, we, too, failed to assess lifestyle modification in that study.

CGM technology continues to advance, and the improved accuracy and calibration-free options now available make it more appealing for general use. However, research into how CGM use affects lifestyle behaviors continues to be lacking, especially in patients not using insulin.

A major limitation of this study is that we did not ascertain participants’ type or duration of diabetes. We focused only on CGM use, duration of CGM use, and method of insulin delivery. CGM use among patients with type 2 diabetes at our academic center was almost nonexistent during the study period, although such use is now growing with newer flash CGM systems and improved real-time CGM technology. Thus, we suspect that most, if not all, survey participants had type 1 diabetes and a long duration of disease because the average age was 36 years, and 50% of participants had been using CGM for more than 2 years. With increasing CGM use among people with type 2 diabetes, it would be interesting to study the perspectives of individuals in this population using either real-time or “flash” intermittent scan CGM devices, as well as the perspectives of people with more recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes using CGM.

Conclusion

The three pillars of diabetes management are diet, medication, and exercise, and all significantly affect glycemic control. What remains to be shown is how CGM can serve as an adjunct to and enhance these interventions. Overall, 90% of participants in our survey felt that they had adopted a healthy lifestyle after using CGM, and a high percentage of the participants who used CGM reported food changes (i.e., limiting or excluding high-GI food such as white rice, cereals, and sugared beverages) and also increased physical activity, especially postprandially. The survey findings highlight the potential utility of CGM as a behavior modification tool in patients with diabetes and underscores the need for further research on CGM in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

Article Information

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Richard Amdur, PhD, and Aileen Chang, MD, for their review of the manuscript.

Duality of Interest

N.E. has received an investigator-initiated grant from Dexcom to study real-time CGM as a behavior modification tool for patients with prediabetes or diabetes. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions

N.E. wrote the manuscript. E.A.Z. researched the data, analyzed the data, and reviewed/edited the manuscript. N.E. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • E.A.Z. is currently affiliated with Faith Regional Medical Center in Norfolk, NE.

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . National diabetes statistics report. 2017. Available from www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2019
  2. 2.↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 2018;41:917–928
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Trikkalinou A,
    2. Papazafiropoulou AK,
    3. Melidonis A
    . Type 2 diabetes and quality of life. World J Diabetes 2017;8:120–129
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Sluik D,
    2. Buijsse B,
    3. Muckelbauer R, et al.
    Physical activity and mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus: a prospective study and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1285–1295
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tikkanen-Dolenc H,
    2. Wadén J,
    3. Forsblom C, et al.; FinnDiane Study Group
    . Physical activity reduces risk of premature mortality in patients with type 1 diabetes with and without kidney disease. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1727–1732
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Manders RJ,
    2. Van Dijk JW,
    3. van Loon LJ
    . Low-intensity exercise reduces the prevalence of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42:219–225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Duvivier BM,
    2. Schaper NC,
    3. Hesselink MK, et al.
    Breaking sitting with light activities vs structured exercise: a randomised crossover study demonstrating benefits for glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2017;60:490–498
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Boulé NG,
    2. Haddad E,
    3. Kenny GP,
    4. Wells GA,
    5. Sigal RJ
    . Effects of exercise on glycemic control and body mass in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. JAMA 2001;286:1218–1227
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Colberg SR,
    2. Sigal RJ,
    3. Fernhall B, et al.; American College of Sports Medicine; American Diabetes Association
    . Exercise and type 2 diabetes: the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Diabetes Association: joint position statement executive summary. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2692–2696
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Colberg SR,
    2. Sigal RJ,
    3. Yardley JE, et al.
    Physical activity/exercise and diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2016;39:2065–2079
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bazargan-Hejazi S,
    2. Arroyo JS,
    3. Hsia S,
    4. Brojeni NR,
    5. Pan D
    . A racial comparison of differences between self-reported and objectively measured physical activity among US adults with diabetes. Ethn Dis 2017;27:403–410
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Oftedal B,
    2. Bru E,
    3. Karlsen B
    . Motivation for diet and exercise management among adults with type 2 diabetes. Scand J Caring Sci 2011;25:735–744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Foster-Powell K,
    2. Holt SH,
    3. Brand-Miller JC
    . International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:5–56
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Brand-Miller J,
    2. Hayne S,
    3. Petocz P,
    4. Colagiuri S
    . Low-glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2003;26:2261–2267
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.
    1. Matthan NR,
    2. Ausman LM,
    3. Meng H,
    4. Tighiouart H,
    5. Lichtenstein AH
    . Estimating the reliability of glycemic index values and potential sources of methodological and biological variability. Am J Clin Nutr 2016;104:1004–1013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Schwingshackl L,
    2. Schwedhelm C,
    3. Hoffmann G, et al.
    Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2017;105:1462–1473
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Evert AB,
    2. Dennison M,
    3. Gardner CD, et al.
    Nutrition therapy for adults with diabetes or prediabetes: a consensus report. Diabetes Care 2019;42:731–754
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Salmerón J,
    2. Ascherio A,
    3. Rimm EB, et al.
    Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care 1997;20:545–550
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.
    1. MacLeod J,
    2. Franz MJ,
    3. Handu D, et al.
    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics nutrition practice guideline for type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults: nutrition intervention evidence reviews and recommendations. J Acad Nutr Diet 2017;117:1637–1658
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Sainsbury E,
    2. Kizirian NV,
    3. Partridge SR,
    4. Gill T,
    5. Colagiuri S,
    6. Gibson AA
    . Effect of dietary carbohydrate restriction on glycemic control in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;139:239–252
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Musacchio N,
    2. Lovagnini Scher A,
    3. Giancaterini A, et al.
    Impact of a chronic care model based on patient empowerment on the management of type 2 diabetes: effects of the SINERGIA programme. Diabet Med 2011;28:724–730
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Adams RJ
    . Improving health outcomes with better patient understanding and education. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2010;3:61–72
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Polonsky WH,
    2. Fisher L,
    3. Schikman CH, et al.
    Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:262–267
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Block JM
    . Continuous glucose monitoring: changing diabetes behavior in real time and retrospectively. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2008;2:484–489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Beck RW,
    2. Riddlesworth T,
    3. Ruedy K, et al.; DIAMOND Study Group
    . Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:371–378
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Lind M,
    2. Polonsky W,
    3. Hirsch IB, et al.
    Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:379–387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Wolpert HA
    . Use of continuous glucose monitoring in the detection and prevention of hypoglycemia. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2007;1:146–150
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Bailey TS,
    2. Zisser HC,
    3. Garg SK
    . Reduction in hemoglobin A1C with real-time continuous glucose monitoring: results from a 12-week observational study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2007;9:203–210
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Ehrhardt NM,
    2. Chellappa M,
    3. Walker MS,
    4. Fonda SJ,
    5. Vigersky RA
    . The effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:668–675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Beck RW,
    2. Riddlesworth TD,
    3. Ruedy K, et al.; DIAMOND Study Group
    . Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:365–374
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. DiPietro L,
    2. Gribok A,
    3. Stevens MS,
    4. Hamm LF,
    5. Rumpler W
    . Three 15-min bouts of moderate postmeal walking significantly improves 24-h glycemic control in older people at risk for impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3262–3268
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Terashima Y,
    2. Nagai Y,
    3. Kato H,
    4. Ohta A,
    5. Tanaka Y
    . Eating glutinous brown rice for one day improves glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes assessed by continuous glucose monitoring. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2017;26:421–426
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Chang CR,
    2. Francois ME,
    3. Little JP
    . Restricting carbohydrates at breakfast is sufficient to reduce 24-hour exposure to postprandial hyperglycemia and improve glycemic variability. Am J Clin Nutr 2019;109:1302–1309
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ehrhardt N,
    2. Al Zaghal E
    . Behavior modification in prediabetes and diabetes: potential use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:271–275
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Yoo HJ,
    2. An HG,
    3. Park SY, et al.
    Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008;82:73–79
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Allen NA,
    2. Fain JA,
    3. Braun B,
    4. Chipkin SR
    . Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008;80:371–379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Allen N,
    2. Whittemore R,
    3. Melkus G
    . A continuous glucose monitoring and problem-solving intervention to change physical activity behavior in women with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:1091–1099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Cox DJ,
    2. Taylor AG,
    3. Moncrief M, et al.
    Continuous glucose monitoring in the self-management of type 2 diabetes: a paradigm shift. Diabetes Care 2016;39:e71–e73
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Haak T,
    2. Hanaire H,
    3. Ajjan R,
    4. Hermanns N,
    5. Riveline JP,
    6. Rayman G
    . Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther 2017;8:55–73
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Vigersky RA,
    2. Fonda SJ,
    3. Chellappa M,
    4. Walker MS,
    5. Ehrhardt NM
    . Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;35:32–38
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Diabetes: 38 (2)

In this Issue

April 2020, 38(2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Clinical Diabetes.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Diabetes
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Clinical Diabetes web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool
Nicole Ehrhardt, Enas Al Zaghal
Clinical Diabetes Apr 2020, 38 (2) 126-131; DOI: 10.2337/cd19-0037

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool
Nicole Ehrhardt, Enas Al Zaghal
Clinical Diabetes Apr 2020, 38 (2) 126-131; DOI: 10.2337/cd19-0037
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Objective
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Improved Glycemic Control Following Transition to Tubeless Insulin Pump Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
  • Practical Strategies to Help Reduce Added Sugars Consumption to Support Glycemic and Weight Management Goals
  • “Counting Carbs to Be in Charge”: A Comparison of an Internet-Based Education Module With In-Class Education in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes
Show more Feature Articles

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Papers in Press
  • Abridged Standards of Care
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Diabetes Care
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Clinical Diabetes Print ISSN: 0891-8929, Online ISSN: 1945-4953.