OBJECTIVES:: This project aims to identify the aspects of glucose monitoring systems important to adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes and quantify the relative importance of treatment attributes to inform policy-makers in health technology assessment. Patients can choose their glucose-monitoring system from a number of alternatives– however, adolescent patients do not make payment decisions. Significant out-of-pocket costs for new glucose-monitoring technologies in Australia may restrict access based on ability-to-pay. Subsidisation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is currently on the political agenda. Given lifestyle and developmental changes during adolescence, it is essential that diabetes management systems suitably match lifestyle requirements to improve clinical compliance and long-term health outcomes. Failure to consider patient preferences and non-health benefits in economic analysis may therefore underestimate the cost-effectiveness of technologies over-lifetime. METHODS:: Three focus groups were hosted to identify important aspects of diabetes treatments for adolescent patients and their parents. A Discrete Choice Experiment was designed using NGene software and was electronically distributed to 179 eligible patients from the 13-15 year old population with type 1 diabetes in Western Australia and their parents. Treatment preference and willingness-to-pay data was collected from 119 parents and 90 adolescent-parent dyads. RESULTS:: Adolescent treatment decisions are negatively influenced by the number of fingerpricks required to monitor blood-glucose per day. Adolescents have a strong preference for treatments that are continuously attached, have low times required to obtain a blood-glucose value and offer alarms for hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia compared to the baseline (standard glucometers), reflective of continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring systems. Parent data demonstrate that the number of fingerpricks is most influential in treatment decisions, with strong preference for treatments that offer alarms. CONCLUSIONS:: Policy-makers should consider co-payments as an alternative to full subsidisation for CGM technologies.