- Open Access
Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic mapping review
BMC Endocrine Disorders volume 22, Article number: 43 (2022)
Among the treatments for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) is a device that infuses insulin through the subcutaneous tissue in an uninterrupted manner and that comes closest to the physiological secretion of insulin. The use of CSII can provide the family with greater security and children and adolescents have more autonomy in relation to the treatment of T1DM. There is a lack of reviews that systematically gather the mounting evidence about the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM. Therefore, the aim of this review was to group and describe primary and secondary studies on the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM.
A systematic mapping review was performed based on searches in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Lilacs and PsycINFO, using a combination of descriptors and keywords. The screening of the studies was carried out with the aid of the Rayyan software and reading in full was conducted independently by two reviewers. The data extraction of the studies was performed using an extraction tool adapted and validated by researchers specialized in diabetes. The data were analyzed according to the content analysis technique. The map from geocoding of the studies was produced using the ArcGis 10.5 software.
A total of 113 studies were included in the review, including primary studies, literature reviews and gray literature publications. The content analysis of the results of the studies allowed for the identification of four categories: 1) metabolic control; 2) support networks; 3) benefits of using CSII; and 4) challenges of using CSII, each category having its respective subcategories. The review also made it possible to conduct a rigorous mapping of the literature on the use of CSII considering the location of development and the design of the studies.
The use of CSII should be indicated by health professionals able to prepare children, adolescents, and their families for the treatment of T1DM, and, despite being a technological device, it may not be suitable for the entire pediatric population.
Annually, about 128,900 children and adolescents are diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) . Global estimates for 2019 were that around 1,110,100 children and adolescents were diagnosed with T1DM . Drug treatment of T1DM consists of insulin injections, which can be administered by syringe, insulin pen or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) systems, so called insulin pumps [2, 3]. CSII is a device that continuously infuses insulin through the subcutaneous tissue . This is the therapy that most closely resembles physiological insulin secretion, releasing minimum doses of insulin continuously (basal infusion) and one-off doses at prandial times or to correct hyperglycemia (bolus infusion) [4, 5].
In addition to the demands related to drug treatment, the diagnosis of diabetes influences the family functioning, affecting the educational, emotional, behavioral and nutritional development of the child . The care to control the disease that must be performed daily consists of glycemic monitoring, drug treatment, carbohydrate counting, and physical exercise, in addition to maintaining good eating habits [7, 8]. The use of technologies, such as CSII, provides the family with greater security, so that children and adolescents develop more autonomy in relation to the treatment of T1DM . CSII has been used successfully in pediatrics and provides several benefits to children and their families .
The first publications on the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM date from 1979 [10, 11]. The available literature on this topic is gathered from systematic reviews [12,13,14], narratives [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and discussions [33,34,35,36,37]. However, no systematic mapping review published in the scientific literature related to the topic was identified. Developing a systematic mapping of the scientific knowledge produced on the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM would facilitate the synthesis of knowledge concerning all the literature produced to date, regardless of the methodology used in the published studies. This review will make it possible to identify gaps that has not yet been addressed and require future research. In addition, reviews are important tools to guide the construction of health policies and to develop implications for clinical practice . Therefore, the purpose of this review was to group and describe existing evidence on the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM.
This is a systematic mapping review, which is characterized by the integration of qualitative and quantitative studies, review studies and gray literature publications, and provides a comprehensive representation of the available literature on a specific topic [38,39,40]. For the systematic development of this review, the six steps proposed by James, Randall and Haddaway  were followed: 1) Development of the review protocol; 2) Search for evidence; 3) Screening of evidence; 4) Codification; 5) Critical evaluation (optional); and 6) Description and visualization of the findings .
Search for evidence
The identification of eligible studies was carried out independently by two reviewers who systematically searched the literature in five databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and LILACS. The search strategy was developed using the PCO tool (P: Population; C: Context; O: Outcome)  and based on the following research question: “What studies have been produced on the use of CSII with children and adolescents with T1DM?”
For the construction of the search strategy, controlled descriptors from MeSH, CINAHL subject headings, APA Thesaurus, Emtree and DECs were used, combined with keywords and the Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT. In addition, studies were manually selected and included by unsystematic searches in the reference lists of studies included in the review. In accordance with the language fluency of the researchers, the search was limited to studies in English, Portuguese and Spanish. To capture the largest possible number of published studies on the subject, an initial time filter was not added and the final time limit was December 2020.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Primary and secondary, quantitative and qualitative studies were included, which presented in their objectives aspects about the use of CSII in children and adolescents (0-18 years) with T1DM. The study could include the perspectives of the children and adolescents themselves, family members, and health professionals. Studies that were excluded were: those comparing multiple dose insulin injection therapy with therapy using CSII; that included young adults and adults together in the samples; patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); and that included CSII users with a focus on the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM) or artificial pancreas.
Screening of evidence
A total of 2088 files were recovered, 2091 of them through the systematic search in the databases and three after analysis of the references of the included studies. After excluding 266 duplicate publications, a total of 1825 titles and abstracts were independently screened by the two reviewers according to the eligibility criteria. A Kappa index of 0.87 was obtained, equivalent to an almost perfect interobserver agreement . This process was achieved with the aid of the Rayyan QCRI software .
In the eligibility stage, 198 publications were selected for reading in full by two independent reviewers (CSA; CLL). In cases of disagreement between them, a third reviewer (LCN) was consulted . Of the 198 publications, 85 were excluded after reading in full, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria of the review. The final sample consisted of 113 references. The screening process of the studies is illustrated by means of the flow diagram of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA), as shown in Fig. 1 .
Data extraction was carried out in stage four of the development of the systematic mapping review, using a data extraction tool adapted from the National Health Service Center for reviews and dissemination . This tool was submitted to content validation by three researchers (ROLB, VCS and LCN), and nurses qualified at the doctorate and postdoctoral level (LCN and ROLB), two of them specialists in T1DM (ROLB and VCS).
In this validation, the relevance of each item to be extracted was evaluated, in order to answer the research question of this mapping review. Adjustments were made and, at the end of the content validation, the tool included the following information that indicated the variables to be extracted from the studies included in the review: study title, authors, year of publication, type of study (document), design, journal of publication, language, study location, objectives, search period (in the case of secondary studies), duration of the study, population, sampling strategy, intervention, and methods and results. Additionally, to assist in the organization of the data extraction process, the studies were separated according to thematic similarity, objectives, and design.
The following information was extracted from the results of the included studies: response of clinical indicators in the use of CSII (for example, variation of HbA1c, BMI, level of hypoglycemia and episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis); influence of the use of CSII on the psychological, social and emotional factors of children, adolescents and their families; effectiveness of using CSII; challenges associated with the use of CSII; and directions for using CSII. The extraction step was carried out independently by the main researcher and another member of the research group. After the initial extraction, three researchers (ROLB; LCN; RRN) verified the data collected by conferring with the original studies.
Subsequently, the extracted data were subjected to content analysis , which went through the following steps: 1) Codification of the extracted data, in which there was an exhaustive reading to identify significant words, passages and categories. Notes were written in the margins to describe all aspects of the content of interest contained in the data; 2) At this stage, the process of categorizing and organizing the codes raised earlier began, considering the affinity, variability and range of the codes, relating them to the composition of the categories. It is worth mentioning that, at this stage, the same code could belong to two different categories, due to the possibility of providing different information to be analyzed; 3) In the third stage, known as integration, the categories were integrated into larger themes, in order to present the contributions of studies in relation to the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM.
Production of the systematic map
To illustrate the geographical location in which the included studies were developed, a spatial mapping was carried out, in which it is possible to visualize the categories of the country and the type of study. This procedure required the geocoding of the locations where the studies were developed, by considering the location of the corresponding author for the analysis.
We opted for the production of a figure for the spatial mapping of the production of scientific studies focused on the use of CSII, due to its potential to identify the world regions where the studies are concentrated on this theme, as well as showing those that need more research on the theme addressed in this review. The geographic coordinates of the addresses were obtained by Google maps and, later, the study sites were geocoded by the ArcGis 10.5 software. The locations of the geocoded studies followed the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) and the Geocentric Reference System for the Americas (SIRGAS) 2000 projection .
Of the total of 113 studies included in this review, there was a higher frequency of publications in the last decade, with 59 studies published between 2010 and 2020 compared to 40 in the period from 2000 to 2009. The frequency of studies prior to the year 2000 totaled 14 studies. In Fig. 2, the number of studies included in the review is illustrated according to the methodological outline and the population studied. Figure 3 illustrates the geocoding of the sites of development of the analyzed studies.
The content analysis of the results of the studies included in this review allowed for the construction of the following categories: metabolic control, support networks, benefits of using CSII, and challenges of using CSII. Figure 4 presents a systematic map with the categories and subcategories formed after the analysis.
This category presents included studies that described the metabolic parameters during the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM.
Forty-two studies addressed in their results that the use of CSII led to an improvement in glycemic control [10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 32, 34, 49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] and seven reported a decrease in glycemic variability [14, 22, 28, 31, 51, 62, 76]. Of these 42 studies, 33 mentioned a decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) [10,13,14,16,18,20,25,27,34,51–53,55–58,60–66,68–74,76,77,79], with a statistically significant reduction of HbA1c in 20 of them [13, 14, 20, 27, 34, 51, 53, 56, 60,61,62,63,64,65, 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 79]. In one study , the reduction in HbA1c was observed only in the group of adolescents.
The relationship between the time of using CSII and the reduction in HbA1c was statistically significant in 18 studies: two of them described a reduction in the period from zero to three months of using CSII [62, 74]; four in the period of three to six months [51, 56, 61, 70]; eight in the period from six to twelve months [27, 53, 63,64,65, 71, 76, 79] and three in a period greater than 12 months [58, 60, 68]. The other studies did not describe the period for observing HbA1c reductions. Other factors that may influence the reduction in lower HbA1c values were also mentioned: greater parental involvement , time of diagnosis , frequency of glycemic monitoring [70, 80], high insulin sensitivity factor , low carbohydrate ratio value , greater amount of bolus insulin taken , younger children and adolescents , less intense autoimmune process  and lower HbA1c values in the first year of treatment .
In contrast, three studies showed that HbA1c did not change after using CSII [82,83,84]. One of these studies described a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c which occurred only in participants with worse glycemic controls . Four studies showed that HbA1c increased after the use of CSII in some participants [61, 70, 85, 86]. These increases may be related to the adoption of inappropriate behaviors in the use of the CSII, such as the omission of bolus insulin , lower frequency of checking blood glucose , and age and time of diagnosis . Some studies have reported both results, with an initial reduction in HbA1c and then a subsequent increase in this parameter; however, HbA1c remained at lower values when compared to previous use of CSII [12, 61, 70].
A study analyzed and compared the glycemic variability according to the CSII catheter puncture site, and found less variability when the catheter is inserted into the buttocks compared to the abdominal region placement . One article demonstrated that each additional self-monitoring performed per day results in a decrease of approximately 0.2% in HbA1c . The HbA1c values with the use of the CSII were also higher in a group of preschoolers compared to a group of adolescents . Additionally, CSII has been used in two studies to induce insulin tolerance in patients with T1DM who are allergic to this substance, resulting in individualized treatment with good glycemic control [89, 90].
Nine studies concluded that the use of CSII reduced hypoglycemic episodes [17, 22, 49, 53, 55, 61, 70, 74, 84] and 11 reported that there was a reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes [12, 13, 34, 49, 52, 64, 66, 71, 72, 75, 77]. Three studies described a lower occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes [31, 37, 74] and another described a decrease in morning hypoglycemic episodes . However, only eight studies demonstrated statistically significant hypoglycemic reductions [12, 22, 31, 61, 70, 71, 74, 84], of which one identified a reduction only in a group of children aged 10 to 12 years . One of these articles is a literature review with inconclusive results regarding the increase or decrease in hypoglycemia rates . Five studies showed a reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia [14, 25, 30, 36, 91], prevention of nocturnal hypoglycemia [28, 36] and the occurrence of this phenomenon in the morning .
Two studies reported a decrease in episodes of hyperglycemia after the use of CSII [57, 62]. However, two other articles described that such episodes can occur even when using CSII [23, 30]. According to studies, hyperglycemia can occur for different reasons, such as: blocking the insulin infusion due to cannula dislodgement [13, 21, 25, 30, 31, 78, 92, 93]; incorrect setting of basal rates or non-administration of bolus insulin ; the amount of insulin in the reservoir finishing ; battery running out ; and system occlusion [15, 33, 78, 83, 93, 94].
Eight studies described improvement in metabolic control with the use of CSII [10, 11, 19, 21, 33, 78, 94, 95]. The improvement in metabolic control was characterized by a reduction in plasma glucose ; circulating lipids ; plasma catecholamines ; cholesterol ; LDL, [21, 78]; anti-insulin antibodies ; amyloid protein A ; excessive losses of phosphorus and calcium in the urine ; and the concentration of glucose in the urine .
In three studies, a reduction in the frequency of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes was mentioned after initiating the use of CSII [50, 66, 96], while two others reported that such episodes did not change compared to previous therapy [31, 61]. One study reported that episodes of DKA increased significantly after the use of CSII . Thus, there is a controversy regarding a possible decrease or increase in episodes of DKA, as noted in a systematic review of the literature, which also did not present conclusive results about this increase or decrease in episodes of DKA .
In 13 studies, the risk of DKA, even when using CSII, was highlighted [13, 16, 17, 22, 23, 27, 30, 49, 52, 72, 92, 97, 98]. The occurrence of DKA episodes can be justified by the use of only fast-acting insulin in CSII . Despite this, results from another study show that the longer the time of use of CSII, the lower the chances of DKA occurrence .
In this category the results of studies are gathered that contribute to the understanding of the necessary support for children and adolescents with T1DM in the use of CSII. The following subcategories were constructed: family support and support from the health team and the school, which will be detailed below.
Seven studies contributed to the construction of this subcategory [24, 33, 59, 69, 91, 94, 100]. Together, they showed that family support is important in the use of CSII by children and adolescents with T1DM. One article mentioned that parental support is necessary for the adjustment of insulin doses and also for the correction of any complications that may arise from the use of CSII , such as an eventual episode of severe hypoglycemia . The experience of parents in caring for young children with the diagnosis of T1DM was described in a qualitative article, which presented reports of fear and insecurity at the beginning of the diagnosis, but being able to overcome these difficulties after using CSII .
Other aspects may influence the results, such as family support expressed by the level of parental involvement in handling and understanding the use of CSII , or in the transition of adolescent care in the management of T1DM . In this sense, a study pointed out that in situations where parents handled their children’s CSII less frequently, children had worse glycemic control when compared to the children of parents who handled this more frequently . Another important aspect to be highlighted is the support exercised by parents during childhood, ranging from comprehensive assistance between 3 and 5 years of age, shared management in the period of 6 to 12 years and support in the development of autonomy from 13 to 18 years [102, 103].
The need to offer family support and the type of family support to be offered can be interpreted differently by family members. In a study that evaluated the most challenging situations faced by parents and adolescents with T1DM, as well as the frequency of these situations, incongruity of perspectives was identified between adolescents and their parents . According to the authors, the greatest difficulty in managing T1DM for adolescents involved self-care in social contexts and situations with their peers, while for parents it was related to situations that depended on the family context and other social contexts.
Support from the health team and the school
Fifteen studies showed the importance of the support of the health team in the care of children and adolescents with T1DM using CSII [16, 17, 22, 24, 33, 34, 37, 69, 72, 91, 94, 95, 100, 104, 105]. Of these, eight [17, 22, 69, 72, 91, 100, 104, 105] indicated that support can be favored in certain ways: through the provision of prior training given to the family and the patient at the beginning of the use of CSII [17, 22, 69, 72, 104]; detection by the health care team of the inappropriate use of CSII ; use of an educational program by the health team aiming to improve glycemic control ; identification of other health support, education, and knowledge networks; and development of skills necessary for behavior change .
One study highlighted that the health team needs to be trained to provide adequate support, care and management to patients using CSII . Likewise, two studies showed that nurses who work in the school environment must be trained to provide the necessary care and support to children and adolescents who use CSII [37, 49]. In addition, it was also shown that nurses can provide support to those who are in out of the ordinary situations in the school context, such as dance presentations at school  and school trips [49, 57].
Benefits of using CSII
The studies grouped together in this category show results that contribute to the understanding of the potential benefits of using CSII, with a view to the adequate management of T1DM. The benefits of using CSII found in this review are:
A more flexible lifestyle due to the use of CSII was addressed in 13 studies [13, 16, 22, 25, 27, 34, 37, 50, 54, 57, 106,107,108]. A more flexible lifestyle was mentioned by the studies including the possibility of traveling  and being able to fast due to religious traditions ;
The flexibility of meals was covered by 16 studies [13,14,15, 20, 23, 27, 28, 31,32,33, 36, 94, 106, 107, 109, 110]. The use of the CSII allows meals to be delayed, advanced or missed without compromising blood glucose control [27, 110]. The use of CSII can help normalize appetite, especially in young people with good glycemic control .
Improvement of cognitive and technical skills [13, 15, 23, 24, 32, 103, 106]. Although some complex cognitive skills improve at the beginning of the use of CSII , a study pointed out that they must be taught by a trained health professional, and the adolescent must be able to demonstrate the skills with little difficulty .
Decrease in micro and macrovascular complications [17, 27, 33, 34, 49, 94]. Of these, one study  showed that the proper use of CSII reduces about 27-76% of micro and macrovascular complications and another study showed that the use of CSII reduces angiopathic and neuropathic complications in the long term . One article highlighted the improvement in distal motor latency and the disappearance of painful disabling dysesthesia in an adolescent after 28 days of using CSII .
Reduction in hospital costs was presented by four studies [27, 57, 94, 96]. The evaluation of the use of the CSII resulted in a decrease in hospital costs, represented by the reduction in: the number of hospital admissions [57, 94]; costs with hospitalization [27, 94, 96]; and length of hospital stay .
Possibility of scheduling several doses of daily basal insulin [28, 34]. This is possible because, with CSII, the configuration of basal doses can vary according to the insulin requirement of the child and adolescent .
Improvement in quality of life and / or satisfaction with treatment [13, 16, 17, 23, 28, 32, 37, 52, 56, 57, 66, 69, 75, 77, 113]. One study  showed a significant improvement in quality of life related to T1DM after the transition to CSII, but there was no improvement in generic quality of life. Of the studies that showed improvement in the quality of life and / or satisfaction with the treatment, one  mentioned that 80% of the users of CSII were satisfied and happy with the treatment;
Challenges of using CSII
The studies grouped together in this category show results that contribute to the understanding of the potential challenges of using CSII, with a view to the adequate management of T1DM. The challenges of using CSII found in this review were:
Eight studies highlighted the high economic cost of this technology [10, 14, 19, 20, 26, 37, 52, 115]. In addition, when calculating costs related to treatment with CSII, the time spent on intensive training for family members by the team of diabetes educators and doctors should be considered, in addition to the daily adjustments of insulin doses made by physicians ;
The lack of adherence by both parents, children and adolescents in the treatment using CSII was mentioned in 14 studies as being a challenge [10, 36, 80, 114, 116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]. Of these, seven showed that this lack of adherence directly interferes with the correct control of T1DM [80, 114, 116, 118, 120,121,122];
Use of this technology in the school environment, as presented by a literature review ;
Exclusive use of rapid insulin ;
The need to increase insulin rates on sick days ;
Disparities in access to the use of CSII [67, 115]. Patients using CSII with lower socioeconomic status are at higher risk of developing acute complications of T1DM, especially DKA . One study identified less likelihood of using CSII in male, older, non-Hispanic blacks, indigenous young people, Alaskan Americans, Spanish speakers or non-English speakers, government insured or uninsured and patients with at least HbA1c ≥ 8.5% ;
Possibility of error in the basal insulin schedules or in the administration of bolus doses .
In addition to the challenges mentioned above, other complications associated with the use of CSII were identified in the studies, namely: 1) needle rupture, mentioned in three studies [92, 126, 127]. Alternatively, a study recommended the use of a teflon catheter instead of steel needles ; 2) displacement of the cannula, discussed in eight studies [13, 21, 25, 30, 31, 37, 78, 93]; 3) infusion system occlusion, cited in seven studies as a complication [15, 33, 37, 78, 83, 93, 94]; 4) mechanical failures or system failures of the CSII, discussed in 16 studies [13, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 52, 63, 69, 78, 93, 97, 98, 108, 128]; 5) Lipodystrophies [13, 93, 129]; 6) Infection at the CSII catheter insertion site was mentioned in 9 studies [13, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 69, 97, 130]; 7) Bleeding in the insertion and in the catheter was presented by one study ; and 8) Occurrence of dermatological problems such as allergies, irritations, eczema, among others reported by 12 studies [13, 21, 26, 30, 31, 37, 69, 97, 108, 129, 131, 132].
The discontinuity of treatment with CSII is also a challenge and was addressed in 13 studies [12, 20, 21, 31, 53, 58, 60, 65, 74, 83, 85, 115, 133]. Of these, 10 studies reported the number of children and adolescents who discontinued treatment, whose percentage varied between 0.42 and 19% of the total sample [12, 20, 31, 53, 58, 60, 65, 74, 85, 133]. The reasons why children and adolescents and their families supported each other in the decision to discontinue the use of CSII were: increased HbA1c [12, 85]; discrete results of blood glucose controls different to what was expected [53, 60, 85]; no improvement in the quality of life ; problems with the infusion set ; catheter obstruction ; occurrence of severe lipodystrophies ; body image problems ; and disadvantaged families followed up in small community centers .
Three studies [12, 20, 58] reported that the discontinuity in the use of CSII is greater in female patients [12, 20, 58], in pubertal age groups, with higher HbA1c, lower frequency of glycemic monitoring, from single-parent families and with higher rates of hypoglycemia .
This review grouped and described evidence available in the literature on the use of CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM, with regard to the metrics used for metabolic control; support networks; and benefits and challenges of using CSII. A rigorous mapping was also conducted of the literature on the use of CSII considering the location of development and the design of the studies [38, 39].
The results presented in this review were not conclusive in relation to the use of CSII on the reduction of HbA1c, reduction of episodes of hyperglycemia and DKA in children and adolescents with T1DM and, therefore, should be analyzed with caution. Although this technology has demonstrated success in the treatment of T1DM, the good outcomes in glycemic and metabolic control should not be analyzed in isolation.
As evidenced in this review, the metrics used for the glycemic and metabolic control of T1DM in children and adolescents are important indicators for the clinical follow-up of this population. However, the results highlight the lack of consensus between such metrics, and it is relevant to mention other aspects capable of influencing this control, such as socioeconomic and psychosocial factors . These factors can be didactically presented as modifiable, for example, adherence to treatment, or non-modifiable, such as age, ethnicity and sex.
This review pointed out modifiable factors that interfere with the use of CSII, such as health literacy and the need for nutritional education. Similar results on the influence of these factors are described in the literature [135, 136]. A study carried out with young adults and adults identified that higher levels of education favored the improvement of glycemic control of T1DM, including patients using CSII . Another factor, such as family structure, has also been described as an intervening factor in the glycemic control of children .
In addition to the modifiable factors, non-modifiable factors that influenced the use of CSII were also found in this review, these include racial and ethnic characteristics or people who are socially vulnerable . Similar results were described in a retrospective study, in which black children and adolescents had higher levels of HbA1c and Caucasians more episodes of hypoglycemia . Although some of these factors are not modifiable, it is important that health professionals know how to identify them and how to incorporate these characteristics in the design of educational approaches. For example, health care teams might consider implementing peer-mentorships  programs or group interventions  specific for underserved populations.
Other dimensions can also interfere in the good management of T1DM in children and adolescents using CSII, namely presence of support networks and family and health team support, including in the school environment. In this review, few studies were found that aimed to explore the influence of family support on the use of CSII. However, these studies were unanimous in describing the importance of family support both for handling CSII in unexpected situations resulting from T1DM and in the transition of care for adolescents with T1DM. Similar results indicate that the shared management of T1DM in adolescence reduces the risk of unfavorable outcomes .
The psycho-emotional aspects arising from the family dynamics described in this review can also interfere in the care of children and adolescents with T1DM using CSII. This results, for example, from parents’ difficulties and insecurities at the beginning of the diagnosis, from an ineffective ability to cope with T1DM, depression, and family conflicts, among others. Studies also report psycho-emotional repercussions in parents of children and adolescents with T1DM, including anxiety, depression , stress, fear of acute complications from T1DM, guilt over poor control, constant sadness resulting from situations experienced daily with their children, and risk of burnout .
The need to cope with the disease encourages parents to seek resources in support networks, in order to manage the exhaustion caused by the care of their children . In this sense, it is essential to support health professionals in facing these psycho-emotional repercussions triggered by T1DM .
Support from the health team was represented in this review in the form of training, follow-up, use of play-based strategies and the identification of new support networks. The use of play-based strategies has been a primary tool for health professionals who deal with children and adolescents with T1DM, as it encourages self-care and good health practices [142, 143]. Such strategies can also be innovative for T1DM education using tools such as games, mobile apps and even humanoid robots [144, 145].
Few studies have addressed the support of the nursing staff or nurse educator of diabetes in the use of CSII. However, evidence points out that the inclusion of this professional in the care of patients with diabetes increases the regularity of medical appointments and, therefore, they tend to follow more carefully the health team’s recommendations for treatment [146,147,148].
The support of nurses or diabetes educators has been described as essential for the successful treatment of T1DM, especially with CSII [6, 7]. In addition, these professionals play an important role in onboarding and permanent training in the use of CSII, and also encourage the development of the seven self-care behaviors in T1DM, in accordance with the recommendations of the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and through prior training .
Finally, we highlight the identification of some challenges and benefits for the use of CSII. Currently, some of the challenges have already been overcome, one of which is the permanence of the subcutaneous puncture with the silicone catheter in place of the steel needle. Of the challenges described for the use of CSII that have not yet been overcome, there was a predominance of those related to the use of the CSII technological apparatus, followed by health literacy, family support and accessibility. Although these challenges have not yet been fully overcome, coping strategies are constantly being developed through public policies, in order to reduce the difficulty of accessing this resource [150,151,152]. It should be mentioned, as an example, the guarantee of access for use of CSII, a high cost device, to children and adolescents with T1DM through the judicialization of health, as might be the reality of lower or middle-income countries.
Nevertheless, multiple benefits were also identified in this review and support the indication of the use of CSII. Of these benefits, there is a predominance of those capable of promoting better quality of life for children and adolescents with T1DM, followed by the benefits related to behaviors, treatment facilities and health literacy. It is worth mentioning that both the challenges and the benefits can be experienced by some users of CSII and not by others, so that the experience of use is always subjective to each child and adolescent. Thus, the health professional must be updated and trained to clarify any doubts related to the challenges and benefits of therapy to family members and patients.
This systematic mapping review made it possible to group and describe evidence of the main aspects of the use of CSII therapy for the management of T1DM in children and adolescents. Our findings clarify the treatment of T1DM with CSII, characterizing its importance in glycemic and metabolic control, the different supports needed for the success of the treatment, and its benefits and challenges. The use of this technology requires sufficient knowledge both from parents and caregivers as well as children and adolescents, self-care skills, and adherence to treatment. If the management of the aspects inherent to the use of the CSII in children and adolescents with T1DM is not sufficient for the safety of the patient and the achievement of the objectives established by the team, another type of treatment should be chosen that best suits the psychosocial and psycho-emotional conditions of the family. It is necessary that health professionals, including nurses, know and understand the particularities of this type of treatment for T1DM so that they can help the patient and family in the use of CSII. It is worth mentioning that both CSII and T1DM management remain in constant development.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Continuous Glucose Monitoring System
Universal Transverse Mercator
Geocentric Reference System for the Americas
Internation Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas Ninth edition. 2019. p. 176. Available from: https://idf.org/e-library/epidemiology-research/diabetes-atlas.html.
Danne T, Phillip M, Buckingham BA, Jarosz-Chobot P, Saboo B, Urakami T, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: insulin treatment in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19:115–35.
Desrochers HR, Schultz AT, Laffel LM. Use of diabetes Technology in Children: role of structured education for Young people with diabetes and families. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2020;49:19–35.
Neupane S, Evans ML. Modern strategies for management of glycaemia in type 1 diabetes. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;47:28–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpmed.2018.10.003.
Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes. Diretrizes Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes. Vol. 5, Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 e Tipo 2. 2019. p.1–491. Available from: https://portaldeboaspraticas.iff.fiocruz.br/biblioteca/diretrizes-da-sociedade-brasileira-de-diabetes-2019-2020/#:~:text=A%20Sociedade%20Brasileira%20de%20Diabetes,para%20discutir%20os%20temas%20relacionados.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes. Vol. 41, supplement 1 The Journal of Cinical and Applied Research and Education: Diabetes Care. 2018. p. 164. Available from: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/issue/41/Supplement_1.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF DIABETES EDUCATORS. AADE Position Statement: AADE7 Self-Care Behaviors. Vol. 8, Issued December 3. 2014. Available from: https://www.diabeteseducator.org/docs/default-source/legacy-docs/_resources/pdf/publications/aade7_position_statement_final.pdf.
Bailey TS, Walsh J, Stone JY. Emerging technologies for diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20:S278–84.
Goldschmidt K. New Technologies for Treating Type I Diabetes in pediatrics. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;40:84–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.02.015.
Riley WJ, Silverstein JH, Rosenbloom AL. Ambulatory diabetes management by a pulse of subcutaneous insulin delivered by a portable pump: preliminary report. Diabetes Care. 1979;2:272–4.
Tamborlane WV, Sherwin RS, Genel M, Felig P. Reduction to normal of plasma gucose in juvenile diabetes by subcutaneous administration of insulin with a portable infusion pump. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:573–8.
Shulman R, Palmert MR, Daneman D. Insulin pump therapy in youths with Type 1 diabetes: uptake and outcomes in the ‘real world’. Diabetes Manag. 2012;2:119–38 Available from: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/dmt.12.1.
Shalitin S, Phillip M. The use of insulin pump therapy in the pediatric age group. Horm Res. 2008;70:14–21.
Toth GH. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Paediatr Child Health (Oxford). 2005;10:28–30.
Adolfsson P, Ziegler R, Hanas R. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: Special needs for children. Pediatr Diabetes [Internet]. 2017;18(4):255–61. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pedi.12491.
Mavinkurve M, Quinn A, O’Gorman CS. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus in children. Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185:335–40.
Tamborlane WV, Swan K, Sikes KA, Steffen AT, Weinzimer SA. The renaissance of insulin pump treatment in childhood type 1 diabetes. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2006;7:205–13.
Danne T, von Schütz W, Lange K, Nestoris C, Datz N, Kordonouri O. Current practice of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents – the Hannover recipe. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7:25–31.
Tamborlane WV. Fulfilling the promise of insulin pump therapy in childhood diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7:4–10.
Kapellen TM, Klinkert C, Heidtmann B, Jakisch B, Haberland H, Hofer SE, et al. Insulin pump treatment in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: experiences of the German working Group for Insulin Pump Treatment in pediatric patients. Postgrad Med. 2010;122:98–105.
Buchwald H, Rohde TD, Kernstine K. Insulin delivery by implanted pump. A chronic treatment for diabetes; 1989. p. 5–7.
Campbell F. The pros and cons of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in the paediatric population and practical considerations when choosing and initiating CSII in children. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis. 2008;8:S6–10 Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed8&NEWS=N&AN=2008608337.
Minicucci WJ. Uso de Bomba de Infusão Subcutânea de Insulina e suas Indicações. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab. 2008;52:340–8.
Boland E, Ahern J, Grey M. A primer on the use of insulin pumps in adolescents. Diabetes Educ. 1998;24:78–86.
Prentice P, Elleri D. Fifteen-minute consultation: Insulin pumps for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. Arch Dis Child - Educ Pract Ed [Internet]. 2018;103(3):131–6. Available from: https://ep.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/archdischild-2016-310884.
Selvan C, Ghosh S, Mukhopadhyay S. Insulin pump - a review. J Indian Med Assoc. 2013;111:746–50.
Kaufman FR, Halvorson M, Miller D, Mackenzie M, Fisher LK, Pitukcheewanont P. Insulin pump therapy in type 1 pediatric patients: now and into the year 2000. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 1999;15:338–52 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-7560%28199909/10%2915%3A5%3C338%3A%3AAID-DMRR57%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Y.
Abdullah N, Pesterfield C, Elleri D, Dunger DB. Management of insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2014;99:214–20.
Tamborlane WV, Sikes KA, Steffen AT, Weinzimer SA. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006;74:S112–5 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168822706700110.
Saboo BD, Talaviya PA, Saboo B. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: practical issues. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;16:S259–62 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603042/?report=printable.
Hofer S, Meraner D, Koehle J. Insulin pump treatment in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Minerva Pediatr. 2012;64:433–8.
Kordonouri O, Hartmann R, Danne T. Treatment of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents using modern insulin pumps. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93:S118–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8227(11)70027-4.
Boland E. A flexible option for adolescents with diabetes. Insulin pump therapy. Adv Nurse Pract. 1998;6:38–44 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555281.
Weinzimer SA, Sikes KA, Steffen AT, Tamborlane WV. Insulin pump treatment of childhood type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2005;52:1677–88.
Einis SB, Mednis GN, Rogers JE, Walton DA. Cultivating quality: A program to train inpatient pediatric nurses in insulin pump use. Am J Nurs. 2011;111:51–5.
Tamborlane WV, Boland EA, Ahern JH. Insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents. Diab Nutr Metab. 2002;15:422–5.
Berget C, Wyckoff L. The Use of Technology in Managing Diabetes in Youth Part 2—Insulin Pump Technologies: Information and Tips for the School Nurse. NASN Sch Nurse [Internet]. 2020;35(4):188–95. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1942602X20928914.
James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid BioMed Central. 2016;5:1–13.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Newburn M, Jones N, Taylor L. A systematic mapping review of effective interventions for communicating with, supporting and providing information to parents of preterm infants. BMJ Open. 2011;1:1–11.
Vojt G, Skivington K, Sweeting H, Campbell M, Fenton C, Thomson H. Lack of evidence on mental health and well-being impacts of individual-level interventions for vulnerable adolescents: systematic mapping review. Public Health. 2018;161:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.04.003.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Joanne Briggs Inst [Internet]. 2015;1–24. Available from: https://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/ReviewersManuals/Scoping-.pdf.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding Interobserver A greement : the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360–3.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210 Available from: http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:1–9.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for Undertaking reviews in health care; 2008. p. 281.
Mayan MJ. Una introducción a los métodos cualitativos: módulo de entrenamiento para estudiantes y profesionales. Institute Press International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. 2001. p. 1–53. Available from: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/pdfs/introduccion.pdf.
Li D, Cova TJ, Dennison PE. Using reverse geocoding to identify prominent wildfire evacuation trigger points. Appl Geogr. 2017;87:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.05.008.
Bierschbach JL, Cooper L, Liedl JA. Insulin pumps: what every school nurse needs to know. J Sch Nurs. 2004;20:117–23 Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10598405040200021201.
Bin-Abbas BS. Insulin pump therapy during Ramadan fasting in type 1 diabetic adolescents. Ann Saudi Med. 2008;28:305–6.
Bougnères PF, Landier F, Lemmel C, Mensire A, Chaussain JL. Insulin pump therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr. 1984;105:212–7 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6747753.
Castellanos RB, Cuartero BG, Gila AG, Casado G, López FH, Tomás L, et al. Documento de consenso sobre tratamiento con infusion subcutánea continua de insulina de la diabetes tipo 1 en la edad pediátrica. An Pediatr. 2010;72:1–4.
Colino E, Martín-Frías M, Yelmo R, Álvarez MÁ, Roldán B, Barrio R. Impact of insulin pump therapy on long-term glycemic control in a pediatric Spanish cohort. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;113:69–76.
Creene A. Pump Therapy in Children; 1983. p. 44–7.
Danne T, Tamborlane WV. Insulin pumps in pediatrics: we have the technology. We have the evidence. Why are still so few kids using it? Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7:2–3.
de Bock M, Rossborough J, Siafarikas A, Evans M, Clapin H, Smith G, et al. Insulin Pump therapy in adolescents with very poor glycemic control during a 12-month cohort trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12:1080–1.
Dowling L, Marsland N. The benefits of insulin pump therapy for children and young people with diabetes. J Fam Health Care. 2008;18:127–9.
Evans-Cheung TC, Campbell F, Yong J, Parslow RC, Feltbower RG. HbA 1c values and hospital admissions in children and adolescents receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Diabet Med. 2019;36:88–95.
Forsner M, Berggren J, Masaba J, Ekbladh A, Olinder AL. Parents’ experiences of caring for a child younger than two years of age treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Eur Diabetes Nurs. 2014;11:7–12.
Hughes CR, McDowell N, Cody D, Costigan C. Sustained benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97:245–7.
Júlíusson PB, Graue M, Wentzel-Larsen T, Søvik O. The impact of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr. 2006;95:1481–7.
Knight S, Northam E, Donath S, Gardner A, Harkin N, Taplin C, et al. Improvements in cognition, mood and behaviour following commencement of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A pilot study. Diabetologia. 2009;52:193–8.
Liberatore R, Perlman K, Buccino J, Artiles-Sisk A, Daneman D. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump treatment in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2004;17:223–6.
Mack-Fogg JE, Orlowski CC, Jospe N. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in toddlers and children with type 1 diabetes mellitus is safe and effective. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005;6:17–21.
Müller-Godeffroy E, Treichel S, Wagner VM. Investigation of quality of life and family burden issues during insulin pump therapy in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus-a large-scale multicentre pilot study. Diabet Med [Internet]. 2009;26(5):493–501. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02707.x.
Muratalina A, Smith-Palmer J, Nurbekova A, Abduakhassova G, Zhubandykova L, Roze S, et al. Project Baiterek: A patient access program to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes in Kazakhstan. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2015;7:74–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2015.09.002.
O’Connor MR, Carlin K, Coker T, Zierler B, Pihoker C. Disparities in insulin Pump therapy persist in youth with type 1 diabetes despite rising overall Pump use rates. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.10.005.
Ooi HL, Wu LL. Insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: improvements in glycemic control and patients’ satisfaction - hospital UKM experience. Med J Malaysia. 2011;66:308–12.
Phillip M, Battelino T, Rodriguez H, Danne T, Kaufman F. Use of insulin pump therapy in the pediatric age-group: consensus statement from the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the Lawson Wilkins pediatric Endocrine Society, and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, endors. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1653–62.
Plotnick LP, Clark LM, Brancati FL, Erlinger T. Safety and effectiveness of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1142–6.
Rabbone I, Scaramuzza A, Bobbio A, Bonfanti R, Lafusco D, Lombardo F, et al. Insulin Pump therapy Management in Very Young Children with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:707–9.
Thompson R. “Pump school” - A structured education programme to empower children and young people using insulin pump therapy. Eur Diabetes Nurs. 2008;5:108–11.
Tolaymat A, Roque JL, Russo LS. Improvement of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with the portable insulin infusion pump. South Med J. 1982;75:185–9.
Willi SM, Planton J, Egede L, Schwarz S. Benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr. 2003;143:796–801.
Woerner S. The benefits of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014;29:712–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.08.010.
Ziegler R, Rees C, Jacobs N, Parkin CG, Lyden MR, Petersen B, et al. Frequent use of an automated bolus advisor improves glycemic control in pediatric patients treated with insulin pump therapy: results of the bolus advisor benefit evaluation (BABE) study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2015;17:311–8 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/pedi.12290.
Tamborlane WV, Sikes KA, Steffen AT, Weinzimer SA. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006;74:223–6.
Tamborlane WV, Press CM. Insulin infusion pump treatment of type I diabetes. Pediatr Clin N Am. 1984;31:721–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3955(16)34617-X.
Scrimgeour L, Cobry E, McFann K, Burdick P, Weimer C, Slover R, et al. Improved glycemic control after long-term insulin Pump use in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9:421–8 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2007.0214.
Lau YN, Korula S, Chan AK, Heels K, Krass I, Ambler G. Analysis of insulin pump settings in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016;17:319–26.
Piechowiak K, Szypowska A. Physiological factors influencing diabetes control in type 1 diabetes children with insulin pumps from diagnosis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019;35:1–7.
Hilliard ME, Goeke-Morey M, Cogen FR, Henderson C, Streisand R. Predictors of diabetes-related quality of life after transitioning to the insulin pump. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:137–46.
Omar D, Alsanae H, Al Khawari M, Abdulrasoul M, Rahme Z, Al Refaei F, et al. An audit of clinical practice in a single Centre in Kuwait: Management of Children on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and cardiovascular risk factors screening. Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2017;11:19–27 Available from: http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCMJ-11-19.
Quispe BV, Frías MM, Martín MBR, Valverde RY, Gómez MÁÁ, Castellanos RB. Efectividad del sistema MiniMed 640G con SmartGuard® para la prevención de hipoglucemia en pacientes pediátricos con diabetes mellitus tipo 1. Endocrinol Diabetes y Nutr. 2017;64:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endinu.2017.02.008.
Babar GS, Ali O, Parton EA, Hoffmann RG, Alemzadeh R. Factors associated with adherence to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in pediatric diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:131–7 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2008.0042.
O’Connell M, Donath S, Cameron F. Poor adherence to integral daily tasks limits the efficacy of CSII in youth. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12:556–9.
Zanfardino A, Iafusco D, Piscopo A, Cocca A, Villano P, Confetto S, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in preschool children: butt or tummy, which is the best infusion set site? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16:563–6 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2013.0357.
Dimeglio LA, Boyd SR, Pottorff TM, Cleveland JL, Fineberg N, Eugster EA. Preschoolers are not miniature adolescents: A comparison of insulin dose requirements in two groups of children with type I diabetes. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2004;17:865–70.
Franklin VL, Torrance T, Peebles M, Wilkie R, Greene S. Life-threatening autoimmunity with diabetes: management with an insulin pump. Pediatr Diabetes. 2003;4:151–4 Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed6&NEWS=N&AN=2003385703.
Hasselmann C, Pecquet C, Bismuth E, Raverdy C, Sola-Gazagnes A, Lobut JB, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion allows tolerance induction and diabetes treatment in a type 1 diabetic child with insulin allergy. Diabetes Metab. 2013;39:174–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2012.10.002.
Peters CJ, Hindmarsh PC, Thompson RJ. Insulin pump therapy. Paediatr Child Health (Oxford). 2017;27:160–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2017.02.002.
Massa G, Gys I, Eyndt AOT, Wauben K, Vanoppen A. Needle detachment from the sure-T® infusion set in two young children with diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and unexplained hyperglycaemia. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2015;28:237–9.
Rabbone I, Minuto N, Toni S, Lombardo F, Iafusco D, Marigliano M, et al. Insulin pump breakdown and infusion set failure in Italian children with type 1 diabetes: A 1-year prospective observational study with suggestions to minimize clinical impact. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:2551–6.
Campbell F, A.L. M, C. G, C. R, P. H, R.G. F. Embedding CSII therapy in the routine management of diabetes in children: A clinical audit of this service in Leeds. Pract Diabetes Int [Internet]. 2009;26(1):24–8. Available from: https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pdi.1324.
Boland EA, Ahern J. Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in young adolescents with diabetes mellitus: a case study. Diabetes Educ. 1997;23:52–4 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9052055.
Steindel BS, Roe TR, Costin G, Carlson M, Kaufman FR. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children and adolescents with chronic poorly controlled type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1995;27:199–204.
Berlin KS, Davies WH, Jastrowski KE, Hains AA, Parton EA, Alemzadeh R. Contextual assessment of problematic situations identified by insulin pump using adolescents and their parents. Fam Syst Health. 2006;24:33–44.
Cornish A, Chase HP. Navigating airport security with an insulin Pump and/or sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:984–5 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2012.0220.
Shulman R, Stukel TA, Miller FA, Newman A, Daneman D, Wasserman JD, et al. Low socioeconomic status is associated with adverse events in children and teens on insulin pumps under a universal access program: A population-based cohort study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2016;4:1–10.
Osipoff JN, Sattar N, Garcia M, Wilson TA. Prime-time hypoglycemia: factitious hypoglycemia during insulin-Pump therapy. Pediatrics. 2010;125:e1246–8 Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2009-1830.
Mitchell K, Johnson K, Cullen K, Lee MM, Hardy OT. Parental mastery of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion skills and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:591–5 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2013.0031.
Spaans EAJM, Kleefstra N, Groenier KH, Bilo HJG, Brand PLP. Adherence to insulin pump treatment declines with increasing age in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109:134–9.
Weissberg-Benchell J, Goodman SS, Antisdel Lomaglio J, Zebracki K. The use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII): parental and professional perceptions of self-care mastery and autonomy in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32:1196–202.
AbdulAziz YH, Al-Sallami HS, Wiltshire E, Rayns J, Willis J, McClintock J, et al. Insulin pump initiation and education for children and adolescents – a qualitative study of current practice in New Zealand. J Diabetes Metab Disord J Diabetes Metab Disorders. 2019;18:59–64.
Brorsson AL, Leksell J, Andersson Franko M, Lindholm OA. A person-centered education for adolescents with type 1 diabetes—A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20:986–96.
American diabetes association. Policy statement. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabetes. 1985;34:516–7 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4029514%5Cn; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4053940.
Markowitz JT, Alleyn CA, Phillips R, Muir A, Young-Hyman D, Laffel LMB. Disordered eating behaviors in youth with type 1 diabetes: prospective pilot assessment following initiation of insulin Pump therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:428–33 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2013.0008.
Wheeler BJ, Heels K, Donaghue KC, Reith DM, Ambler GR. Insulin Pump–Associated Adverse Events in Children and Adolescents—A Prospective Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16:558–62 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2013.0388.
Patton SR, Williams LB, Dolan LM, Chen M, Powers SW. Feeding problems reported by parents of young children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy and their associations with children’s glycemic control. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10:455–60.
Shulman R, Miller FA, Daneman D, Guttmann A. Valuing technology: A qualitative interview study with physicians about insulin pump therapy for children with type 1 diabetes. Health Policy (New York). 2016;120:64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.10.006.
Peters JE, Mount E, Huggins CE, Rodda C, Silvers MA. Insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents: changes in dietary habits, composition and quality of life. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49:300–5.
Daley KB, Wodrich DL, Hasan K. Classroom attention in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: the effect of stabilizing serum glucose. J Pediatr. 2006;148:201–6.
Espejel-Huerta D, Antilló-Ferreira CA, Iglesias-Leboreiro J, Bernárdez-Zapata I, Ramos-Méndez A, Rendón-Macías ME. Indicaciones para el uso de microinfusora de insulina en pacientes pediátricos con diabetes mellitus tipo 1. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2016;54:64–9.
Pánkowska E, Skórka A, Szypowska A, Lipka M. Memory of insulin pumps and their record as a source of information about insulin therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:308–14 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2005.7.308.
Shulman R, Miller F, Stukel T, Daneman D, Guttmann A. Pediatric insulin Pump therapy: reflecting on the first 10 years of a universal funding program in Ontario. Healthc Q. 2017;19:6–9 Available from: http://www.longwoods.com/content/25019.
Olinder AL, Kernell A, Smide B. Missed bolus doses: devastating for metabolic control in CSII-treated adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;10:142–8.
Patton SR, Driscoll KA, Clements MA. Adherence to insulin Pump behaviors in Young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:87–91.
Spaans E, van Hateren KJJ, Groenier KH, Bilo HJG, Kleefstra N, Brand PLP. Mealtime insulin bolus adherence and glycemic control in adolescents on insulin pump therapy. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177:1831–6.
Patton SR, Noser AE, Clements MA, Dolan LM, Powers SW. Reexamining the hypoglycemia fear survey for parents of Young children in a sample of children using insulin pumps. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:103–8 Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/dia.2016.0389.
Andersen AJB, Ostenfeld A, Pipper CB, Olsen BS, Hertz AM, Jørgensen LK, et al. Optimum bolus wizard settings in insulin pumps in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2016;33:1360–5.
Danne T, Battelino T, Kordonouri O, Hanas R, Klinkert C, Ludvigsson J, et al. A cross-sectional international survey of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in 377 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus from 10 countries. Pediatr Diabetes [Internet]. 2005;6(4):193–8. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-543X.2005.00131.x.
Driscoll KA, Wang Y, Johnson SB, Gill E, Wright N, Deeb LC. White coat adherence occurs in adolescents with type 1 diabetes receiving intervention to improve insulin Pump adherence behaviors. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:455–60.
Franklin VL, S. B, V. R, C. S, S.A. G, V. A. Unexplained hypoglycaemia on a pump. Pediatr Diabetes 2007;8:391–2. Available from: http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L350168153%5Cn; doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5448.2007.00295.x.
McDonough RJ, Clements MA, DeLurgio SA, Patton SR. Sleep duration and its impact on adherence in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18:262–70.
Moreau F, Spizzo H, Bursztejn C, Berthoux V, Agin A, Pinget M, et al. Factitious self-manipulation of the external insulin pump in adolescents with Type1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011;28:623–4.
Moser C, Maurer K, Binder E, Meraner D, Steichen E, Abt D, et al. Needle detachment in a slim and physically active child with insulin pump treatment. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016;17:385–8.
Wieliczko MC, Mallet E. Rupture of needle during infusion with portable insulin pump in children. Diabetes Care. 1999;12:440.
Rabbone I, Minuto N, Bonfanti R, Marigliano M, Cerutti F, Cherubini V, et al. Treatment insulin pump failures in Italian children with type 1 diabetes: retrospective 1-year cohort study. Diabet Med. 2017;34:621–4.
Conwell LS, Pope E, Artiles AM, Mohanta A, Daneman A, Daneman D. Dermatological complications of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents. J Pediatr. 2008;152:622–8.
Schober E, Rami B. Dermatological side effects and complications of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in preschool-age and school-age children. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10:198–201.
Berg AK, Simonsen AB, Svensson J. Perception and possible causes of skin problems to insulin Pump and glucose sensor: results from pediatric focus groups. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20:566–70 Available from: http://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/dia.2018.0089.
Lombardo F, Passanisi S, Caminiti L, Barbalace A, Marino A, Iannelli M, et al. High Prevalence of Skin Reactions Among Pediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Using New Technologies: The Alarming Role of Colophonium. Diabetes Technol Ther [Internet]. 2020;22(1):53–6. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/dia.2019.0236.
Shulman R, Stukel TA, Miller FA, Newman A, Daneman D, Guttmann A. Insulin pump use and discontinuation in children and teens: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18:33–44.
Gomes MB, Rodacki M, Pavin EJ, Cobas RA, Felicio JS, Zajdenverg L, et al. The impact of ethnicity, educational and economic status on the prescription of insulin therapeutic regimens and on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. A nationwide study in Brazil. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;134:44–52.
Chari R, Warsh J, Ketterer T, Hossain J, Sharif I. Association between health literacy and child and adolescent obesity. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94:61–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.006.
Brandt L, Schultes MT, Yanagida T, Maier G, Kollmayer M, Spiel C. Differential associations of health literacy with Austrian adolescents’ tobacco and alcohol use. Public Health. 2019;174:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2019.05.033.
Pulgarón ER, Sanders LM, Patiño-Fernandez AM, Wile D, Sanchez J, Rothman RL, et al. Glycemic control in young children with diabetes: the role of parental health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94:67–70.
Chalew S, Kamps J, Jurgen B, Gomez R, Hempe J. The relationship of glycemic control, insulin dose, and race with hypoglycemia in youth with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complicat. 2020;34:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2019.107519.
Walker AF, Haller MJ, Gurka MJ, Morris HL, Bruggeman B, Miller K, et al. Addressing health disparities in type 1 diabetes through peer mentorship. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21:120–7.
Ash GI, Joiner KL, Savoye M, Baker JS, Gerosa J, Kleck E, et al. Feasibility and safety of a group physical activity program for youth with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20:450–9.
Prikken S, Raymaekers K, Oris L, Rassart J, Weets I, Moons P, et al. A triadic perspective on control perceptions in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents: associations with treatment adherence and glycemic control. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;150:264–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.03.025.
Khemakhem R, Dridi Y, Hamza M, Ben HA, Khlayfia Z, Ouerda H, et al. How do parents of children with type 1 diabetes mellitus cope and how does this condition affect caregivers’ mental health ? Arch. Pédiatrie. 2020;27:265–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcped.2020.05.001.
Abdoli S, Vora A, Smither B, Roach AD, Vora AC. I don’t have the choice to burnout; experiences of parents of children with type 1 diabetes. Appl Nurs Res. 2020;54:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151317.
Ortiz R, Banca L, Butler DA, Volkening LK, Laffel LM. Play-based interventions delivered by child life Specialists : teachable moments for youth with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Health Care. 2020;34:356–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2020.02.002.
Pennafort VPDS, Queiroz MVO, Gomes ILV, Rocha MDFF. Brinquedo terapêutico instrucional no cuidado cultural da criança com diabetes tipo 1. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71:1415–23 Available from: http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=131234554&site=ehost-live.
Alsaleh N, Alnanih R. Gamification-based behavioral change in children with diabetes mellitus. Procedia Comput Sci. 2020;170:442–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.087.
Zwar NA, Hermiz O, Comino EJ, Shortus T, Burns J, Harris M. Do multidisciplinary care plans result in better care for patients with type 2 diabetes? Aust Fam Physician [Internet]. 2007;36(1–2):85–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17252093.
Fenton JJ, Korff MV, Lin EHB, Ciechanowski P, Young BA. Quality of preventive Care for Diabetes. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:32–9.
Beck J, Greenwood DA, Blanton L, Bollinger ST, Butcher MK, Condon JE, et al. 2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support. Diabetes Care. 2017;44(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci17-0025.
Vitale M, Xu C, Lou W, Horodezny S, Dorado L, Sidani S, et al. Impact of diabetes education teams in primary care on processes of care indicators. Prim Care Diabetes. 2019:4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2019.06.004.
Beck J, Greenwood DA, Blanton L, Bollinger ST, Butcher MK, Condon JE, et al. 2017 National Standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care. 2017;44:1–11.
Santos ECB dos, Teixeira CR de S, Zanetti ML, Santos MA dos, Pereira MCA. Políticas publicas e direitos do usuário do Sistema único de Saúde com diabetes mellitus. Rev Bras Enferm [Internet]. 2011;64(5):952–7. Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/reben/a/r3xYx8ZYVq8Jh5VDMCBz6kC/?format=pdf&lang=pt.
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001; and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) - Grant numbers: 130253/2018-9 and 312339/2017-8.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Alvarenga, C.S., La Banca, R.O., Neris, R.R. et al. Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic mapping review. BMC Endocr Disord 22, 43 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-00950-7
- Diabetes mellitus, type 1
- Insulin infusion systems
- Pediatric nursing