EFFECT OF STRUCTURED COACHING AND EDUCATION ON GLYCEMIC AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG ADULTS INITIATING CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
Author(s)
Consuela Dennis, DNP, RN, NE-BC1, Tina Platania, CDCES2, Danielle Carlson, BA2, Jason Allaire, PhD3;
1CCS Medical, Corydon, IN, USA, 2CCS Medical, Clearwater, FL, USA, 3Generativity Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Principal, Emerald Isle, NC, USA
1CCS Medical, Corydon, IN, USA, 2CCS Medical, Clearwater, FL, USA, 3Generativity Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Principal, Emerald Isle, NC, USA
OBJECTIVES: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is associated with improved glycemic awareness and clinical outcomes; however, CGM use alone may not be sufficient to translate glucose data into sustained behavioral or therapeutic change. This randomized study evaluated whether adding a coaching and education program at the time of CGM initiation was associated with greater improvements in glycemic and patient-reported outcomes compared with CGM alone.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized, two-arm study enrolled adults newly initiating CGM and assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to CGM plus structured coaching and education support (LivingConnected®) (CGM-LC) or CGM alone (CGM-O). The intervention integrated structured coaching and education delivered by certified diabetes care and education specialists (CDCES) via telephone and a digital health app. Primary outcomes were CGM-derived glycemic metrics, including average glucose, glycemic management indicator (GMI), and time in range (TIR). Secondary outcomes focused on diabetes self-efficacy. Between-group differences in change from baseline to 9 months were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 424 participants completed baseline assessments. At 9 months, participants in the CGM-LC arm demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in average glucose compared with the CGM-O arm (p = 0.047). Directionally consistent improvements in GMI and TIR also favored CGM-LC, though between-group differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07 and p = 0.13 respectively) consistent with early glycemic stabilization observed with longitudinal support. Participants receiving CGM-LC demonstrated significantly greater improvements in diabetes self-efficacy compared with CGM-O (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Among adults initiating CGM, structured education and coaching was associated with greater improvements in average glucose and diabetes self-efficacy compared with CGM alone. While CGM use alone is often associated with early glycemic improvement, these findings suggest that integrating CGM with ongoing, CDCES-led support may help sustain engagement and translate early glycemic improvements into more durable clinical and patient-reported outcomes in routine diabetes care.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized, two-arm study enrolled adults newly initiating CGM and assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to CGM plus structured coaching and education support (LivingConnected®) (CGM-LC) or CGM alone (CGM-O). The intervention integrated structured coaching and education delivered by certified diabetes care and education specialists (CDCES) via telephone and a digital health app. Primary outcomes were CGM-derived glycemic metrics, including average glucose, glycemic management indicator (GMI), and time in range (TIR). Secondary outcomes focused on diabetes self-efficacy. Between-group differences in change from baseline to 9 months were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 424 participants completed baseline assessments. At 9 months, participants in the CGM-LC arm demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in average glucose compared with the CGM-O arm (p = 0.047). Directionally consistent improvements in GMI and TIR also favored CGM-LC, though between-group differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07 and p = 0.13 respectively) consistent with early glycemic stabilization observed with longitudinal support. Participants receiving CGM-LC demonstrated significantly greater improvements in diabetes self-efficacy compared with CGM-O (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Among adults initiating CGM, structured education and coaching was associated with greater improvements in average glucose and diabetes self-efficacy compared with CGM alone. While CGM use alone is often associated with early glycemic improvement, these findings suggest that integrating CGM with ongoing, CDCES-led support may help sustain engagement and translate early glycemic improvements into more durable clinical and patient-reported outcomes in routine diabetes care.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
MT15
Topic
Medical Technologies
Disease
SDC: Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity)