• Is There a "Right Person" for CGM? Myths vs. Facts

    Information provided by Dexcom


    There are many discussions regarding who is the “right person” to use continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Healthcare professionals (HCPs), diabetes care and education specialists (DCES) and people living with diabetes (PWD) all have different experiences relating to what might be true and what might not be true.

    There are barriers that impact technology adoption, and survey data have shown that HCPs and PWD do not always align on these barriers to technology use.1 For example, in a survey, 46% of clinicians thought PWD do not understand what to do with the information from CGMs or the features of the devices; however, less than 5% of PWD agreed.1 And, while 35% of PWD reported they do not like having diabetes devices on their bodies, nearly twice as many HCPs (64%) reported that was an issue.1 Finally, 24% of clinicians—one quarter of the respondents—thought that PWD do not want more information about their diabetes; however, only 2% of PWD agreed with this statement.1

    In the literature, there is a perception that only some people “deserve” technology like real-time CGM (RT-CGM) and that some HCPs may be considered “gatekeepers” who only offer CGM to certain PWD based on their age, educational level, socioeconomic status, etc. However, in the MOBILE study,2 which enrolled a very diverse cohort of people with type 2 diabetes using only basal insulin and randomized them to RT-CGM or blood glucose meter monitoring (BGM), there was very high usage of CGM and outcomes in the CGM arm of the trial were significantly improved. This study shows that a diverse population can benefit from RT-CGM.

    Although there is sentiment that only people on pumps and multiple daily injections of insulin can benefit from RT-CGM, one of the interesting outcomes of the MOBILE trial is that people using only basal insulin showed improved outcomes. An interesting fact is that there were no significant differences in treatment or medication changes between the BGM and RT-CGM groups. The hypothesis is that PWD were making changes to their food and activity or even simply taking their medications more often.3

    To learn more about myths, barriers and facts related to CGM use, listen to this podcast  in which the panel will discuss the most common myths heard from both HCPs and PWD and share some practical tips on how you can more effectively communicate the appropriate use of CGM. By the end of the podcast, you will be empowered to advocate for the use of CGM for your patients living with diabetes.

    For more information about CGM, please visit www.cgmonitoring.net.


    Nicole Bereolos, PhD, MPH, MSCP, CDCES, FADCES
    Clinical Psychologist, Diabetes Care and Education Specialist
    Bereolos, PhD, PLLC
    McKinney, TX

    Mark Heyman, PhD, CDCES
    Clinical Psychologist, Diabetes Care and Education Specialist
    CEO, Center for Diabetes and Mental Health
    San Diego, CA


    Deborah Greenwood, PhD, RN, BC-ADM, CDCES, FADCES
    Senior Manager, Clinical Education, Dexcom
    San Diego, CA


    1. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Hanes SJ, et al. Optimal Use of Diabetes Devices: Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Adherence to Device Use. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 May;11(3):484-492. doi:10.1177/1932296816688010.
    2. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Jun 8;325(22):2262-2272. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444.
    3. Peak M, Thomas CC. Broadening Access to Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. JAMA. 2021 Jun 8;325(22):2255-2257. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6208.


    The posting of sponsored information and content on this page should not be considered an AAFP endorsement or recommendation of the sponsor's products, services, policies, or procedures. The information and opinions expressed on this page are those of the paid sponsors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the AAFP. The AAFP is not responsible for the content of third-party websites linked from this page; moreover, any links on this page to third-party websites where goods or services are advertised are not endorsements or recommendations by the AAFP of the third-party sites, goods, or services.