Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward Continuous Glucose Monitoring Among Diabetes Educators, Nurses, and Pharmacists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alfayez Osamah M, Alkhezi Omar S, Sawan Yara H, Almutairi Rahaf M, Algeffari Metab
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly used in diabetes care. However, data on CGM-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among non-physician healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia are limited. This study evaluated these domains among diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of licensed diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists involved in diabetes care in Saudi Arabia. The survey assessed knowledge of guideline-aligned CGM metrics, attitudes toward CGM use, practice patterns, perceived barriers, and training needs. Bivariate analyses and Firth penalized logistic regression were used to identify predictors of routine ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) review.
RESULTS: Fifty-three healthcare professionals participated, including 24 nurses, 20 diabetes educators, and 9 pharmacists. Knowledge of CGM metrics was modest overall. Correct responses ranged from 24.5% for glucose variability metrics to 53.1% for limitations of glycated hemoglobin interpretation. Only 26.5% achieved adequate knowledge scores. Overall, 61.4% agreed that CGM improves safety and quality of life in older adults using insulin, and 63.6% reported confidence using time in range and trend arrows during patient counseling. Routine AGP review was reported by 76.2% of respondents and was most common among diabetes educators. In multivariable analysis, diabetes educator role remained independently associated with routine AGP review (adjusted odds ratio 23.57; 95% confidence interval 5.32-82.49). Cost and coverage were the most commonly reported barriers to CGM use. Case-based workshops and workplace teaching were the preferred training formats.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals demonstrated positive attitudes toward CGM, but important knowledge gaps remain. Diabetes educators reported greater confidence and more frequent use of CGM reports. Targeted multidisciplinary training and improved access to CGM may support wider implementation in routine diabetes care. Given the small sample size, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and may not be generalizable to the broader healthcare workforce in Saudi Arabia.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of licensed diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists involved in diabetes care in Saudi Arabia. The survey assessed knowledge of guideline-aligned CGM metrics, attitudes toward CGM use, practice patterns, perceived barriers, and training needs. Bivariate analyses and Firth penalized logistic regression were used to identify predictors of routine ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) review.
RESULTS: Fifty-three healthcare professionals participated, including 24 nurses, 20 diabetes educators, and 9 pharmacists. Knowledge of CGM metrics was modest overall. Correct responses ranged from 24.5% for glucose variability metrics to 53.1% for limitations of glycated hemoglobin interpretation. Only 26.5% achieved adequate knowledge scores. Overall, 61.4% agreed that CGM improves safety and quality of life in older adults using insulin, and 63.6% reported confidence using time in range and trend arrows during patient counseling. Routine AGP review was reported by 76.2% of respondents and was most common among diabetes educators. In multivariable analysis, diabetes educator role remained independently associated with routine AGP review (adjusted odds ratio 23.57; 95% confidence interval 5.32-82.49). Cost and coverage were the most commonly reported barriers to CGM use. Case-based workshops and workplace teaching were the preferred training formats.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals demonstrated positive attitudes toward CGM, but important knowledge gaps remain. Diabetes educators reported greater confidence and more frequent use of CGM reports. Targeted multidisciplinary training and improved access to CGM may support wider implementation in routine diabetes care. Given the small sample size, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and may not be generalizable to the broader healthcare workforce in Saudi Arabia.