Acceptability, Feasibility, and User Experiences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes in Kenya: Perspectives of Adolescents, Young Adults, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers

<jats:p>Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a growing public health concern in low- and middle-income countries, where access to glucose monitoring and consistent routine care remains limited. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may improve diabetes outcomes, but evidence of its acceptability and use in low-resource settings is limited. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of CGM use among people living with T1D, their caregivers, and healthcare providers (HCPs). Methods: Participants were recruited from the ACCEDE-U study, a usability study on CGM use among people living with T1D attending a tertiary referral hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. Among 40 participants in the ACCEDE-U study, those who had completed at least seven weeks of CGM use were eligible to participate in the qualitative component. Three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted: one with nine caregivers, one with nine adolescents (12-17 years), and one with six young adults (18-24 years). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 HCPs. Data was collected using guides, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically guided by the socioecological framework. CORE-Q guidelines were used to report results. Results: Participants reported increased engagement in glucose monitoring and high acceptability of CGM. Reduced finger-prick testing and real-time alerts were key benefits, particularly among adolescents and young adults, who valued its discreetness and convenience. CGM was perceived to facilitate sharing of glucose data with HCPs. Caregivers reported a reduced monitoring burden. HCPs perceived CGM as valuable for clinical decision-making by providing real-time insights into glycemic patterns. Cost and limited device availability were identified as major barriers to sustained use. Conclusion: CGM was well accepted and perceived as beneficial. However, challenges related to cost and access may limit broader uptake. Improving affordability and availability could enhance feasibility and promote wider implementation in similar settings.</jats:p>