Diabetes is a chronic illness that places a significant self-management burden on affected individuals and families. Given the importance of health behaviors-such as medication adherence, diet, physical activity, blood glucose self-monitoring-in achieving optimal glycemic control in diabetes, interventions designed and delivered by psychologists hold promise in assisting children, adolescents, and adults with diabetes in improving their health status and lowering their risk of serious complications. This article first provides an overview of diabetes self-management and associated challenges and burdens. Socioeconomic status factors that may influence diabetes management and outcomes are briefly highlighted. We then review the evidence base for select psychosocial factors that may be implicated in diabetes self-management. Modifiable targets of psychological intervention are presented across 3 overarching domains: (a) knowledge, beliefs, and related cognitive constructs; (b) emotional distress and well-being; and (c) behavioral skills and coping. Important methodological issues facing future research are discussed, along with opportunities for psychologists in improving the care and treatment outcomes of individuals and families living with diabetes. In conclusion, we advocate for continued research emphasis on improving psychosocial aspects of living with diabetes, with greater attention to the situational context in which the self-regulatory processes underlying self-management occur. Psychologists have important roles to play in reducing emotional distress, improving patient knowledge, and providing training in behavioral skills to promote successful self-management and to support patient-centered diabetes care. (PsycINFO Database Record

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes devices (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors [CGMs]) are associated with benefits for glycemic control, yet uptake of these devices continues to be low. Some barriers to device uptake may be modifiable through psychosocial intervention, but little is known about which barriers and which patients to target.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We surveyed 1,503 adult T1D Exchange participants (mean age 35.3 [SD 14.8] years, mean diagnosis duration 20.4 [SD 12.5] years) to investigate barriers to device uptake, understand profiles of device users versus nonusers, and explore differences by age and sex. Scales used were the Diabetes Distress Scale, Technology Use Attitudes (General and Diabetes-Specific), and Barriers to Device Use and Reasons for Discontinuing Devices.RESULTS: Most commonly endorsed modifiable barriers were related to the hassle of wearing devices (47%) and disliking devices on one’s body (35%). CGM users (37%) were older than nonusers (mean 38.3 vs. 33.5 years), had diabetes for longer (22.9 vs. 18.8 years), had more positive technology attitudes (22.6–26.0 vs. 21.4–24.8), and reported fewer barriers to using diabetes technology than nonusers (3.3 vs. 4.3). The youngest age-group (18–25 years) had the lowest CGM (26% vs. 40–48%) and insulin pump (64% vs. 69–77%) uptake, highest diabetes distress (2.2 vs. 1.8–2.1), and highest HbA1c levels (8.3% [67 mmol/mol] vs. 7.2–7.4% [55–57 mmol/mol]).CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase device use need to target physical barriers to wearing devices. Because young adults had the lowest device uptake rates, highest distress, and highest HbA1c compared with older age-groups, they should be the focus of future interventions to increase device use.

Background. Few studies have examined protective factors for diabetes distress.Purpose. This study aimed to examine the moderating role of social supp