Aaron Neinstein

Objective: Develop a device-agnostic cloud platform to host diabetes device data and catalyze an ecosystem of software innovation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) management.

Materials and Methods: An interdisciplinary team decided to establish a nonprofit company, Tidepool, and build open-source software.

Results: Through a user-centered design process, the authors created a software platform, the Tidepool Platform, to upload and host T1D device data in an integrated, device-agnostic… Show more

Objective: Develop a device-agnostic cloud platform to host diabetes device data and catalyze an ecosystem of software innovation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) management.

Materials and Methods: An interdisciplinary team decided to establish a nonprofit company, Tidepool, and build open-source software.

Results: Through a user-centered design process, the authors created a software platform, the Tidepool Platform, to upload and host T1D device data in an integrated, device-agnostic fashion, as well as an application (“app”), Blip, to visualize the data. Tidepool’s software utilizes the principles of modular components, modern web design including REST APIs and JavaScript, cloud computing, agile development methodology, and robust privacy and security.

Discussion: By consolidating the currently scattered and siloed T1D device data ecosystem into one open platform, Tidepool can improve access to the data and enable new possibilities and efficiencies in T1D clinical care and research. The Tidepool Platform decouples diabetes apps from diabetes devices, allowing software developers to build innovative apps without requiring them to design a unique back-end (e.g., database and security) or unique ways of ingesting device data. It allows people with T1D to choose to use any preferred app regardless of which device(s) they use.

Conclusion: The authors believe that the Tidepool Platform can solve two current problems in the T1D device landscape: 1) limited access to T1D device data and 2) poor interoperability of data from different devices. If proven effective, Tidepool’s open source, cloud model for health data interoperability is applicable to other healthcare use cases. Show less

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes (T1D), periodic review of blood glucose and insulin dosing should be performed, but it is not known how often patients review these data on their own. We describe the proportion of patients with T1D who routinely downloaded and reviewed their data at home.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 155 adults and 185 caregivers of children with T1D at a single academic institution was performed. "Routine Downloaders"​ (downloaded four or more times… Show more

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes (T1D), periodic review of blood glucose and insulin dosing should be performed, but it is not known how often patients review these data on their own. We describe the proportion of patients with T1D who routinely downloaded and reviewed their data at home.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 155 adults and 185 caregivers of children with T1D at a single academic institution was performed. "Routine Downloaders"​ (downloaded four or more times in the past year) were also considered "Routine Reviewers" if they reviewed their data most of the time they downloaded from devices. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.

RESULTS: Only 31% of adults and 56% of caregivers reported ever downloading data from one or more devices, whereas 20% and 40%, respectively, were considered Routine Downloaders. Only 12% of adults and 27% of caregivers were Routine Reviewers. Mean hemoglobin A1c was lower in Routine Reviewers compared with non-Routine Reviewers (7.2±1.0% vs. 8.1±1.6% [P=0.03] in adults and 7.8±1.4% vs. 8.6±1.7% [P=0.001] in children). In adjusted analysis of adults, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer of one or more devices for every 10-year increase in age was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 2.1 [P=0.02]). For every 10 years since diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.4 [P=0.01]). For caregivers, there were no statistically significant factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer.

CONCLUSIONS: A minority of T1D patients routinely downloads and reviews data from their devices on their own. Further research is needed to understand obstacles, provide better education and tools for self-review, and determine if patient self-review is associated with improved glycemic control. Show less