Habituation to Elevated Glucose Levels in Type 1 Diabetes: Function and Well-being in Guideline-Based Versus Typical Glycemic Range
Authors' conclusion
Personal glucose ranges capture aspects of lived experience not fully reflected by guideline targets, supporting TIPR as a complementary metric for psychosocially informed, person-centered care.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D; mean ± SD age 41.1 ± 14.8 years; 55% female; 41% Hispanic, 30% non-Hispanic White, 14% non-Hispanic Blackanalysed
- Participants
- 161 adults
- Exposure
- Time in range (TIR) vs time in personal range
- Outcome
- Association of TIR vs TIPR in each 3-h interval preceding an EMA prompt with daily symptoms, functioning and diabetes-specific outcomes
Methodological details14 days of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), EMA and mobile cognitive testing six times daily, within-person analyses, stratified by personal CGM use
- 14 days of blinded CGM
- EMA and mobile cognitive testing six times daily
- Within-person analyses
- Stratified by personal CGM use
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Within-person associations with symptoms, functioning and diabetes-specific outcomes
- Time in personal range (TIPR) more consistently associated than TIR with improved pain, fatigue, activity demands and perceptual speed
- TIR more strongly associated with better diabetes-specific self-evaluations (diabetes distress and self-care)
- Glucose metrics showed minimal associations with stress and negative affect; TIPR modest associations with positive affect
- In models including both, TIPR explained unique variance beyond TIR for several outcomes
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Associations stratified by personal CGM use
- Associations between glucose metrics and diabetes-specific outcomes stronger among CGM users than nonusers
Original publication
Habituation to Elevated Glucose Levels in Type 1 Diabetes: Function and Well-being in Guideline-Based Versus Typical Glycemic Range. Diabetes Care. Published 7 July 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →