PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Sociology of Health & Illness· 2026Q1· Review

Framings of Patient Knowledge and Proximal Technologies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Hermeneutic Review Using Meta‐Narrative Methods

Nadia Swann, Jackie van Dael, Henriette Langstrup, Eleanor Barry et al.

Short summary

A meta-narrative review of 74 articles reveals four distinct research traditions framing patient knowledge for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) technologies: biomedical (passive recipients, factual knowledge), health psychology (individual empowerment, skill mastery), design studies (instrument for design), and social science (social process, embodied/situated knowledge).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Analyzed 74 articles using meta-narrative methods to classify framings of patient knowledge for T1D wearable technologies.
  • Identified four research traditions: biomedical, health psychology, design and innovation studies, and social science.
  • Biomedical literature framed patient knowledge as factual/skills-based, with patients as passive recipients.
  • Social science approaches emphasized knowledge as a social, embodied, and situated process.
  • Narrow framings of patient knowledge may negatively impact T1D technology development and implementation.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Some people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) wear glucose sensors and pumps which use algorithms to deliver insulin automatically. These technologies require practical knowledge, yet how patients develop this knowledge remains undertheorised. We conducted a hermeneutic review, informed by meta‐narrative methods, to examine how different research traditions have conceptualised patient knowledge concerning T1D proximal or wearable technologies. Using databases and snowball searches, we classified 74 articles into four research traditions, each carrying assumptions about how patients acquire, develop or enact knowledge. In biomedical literature, patients were typically seen as passive recipients of technology, with knowledge framed as factual or skills‐based. Health psychology literature emphasised individual empowerment through mastery of technical skills. Design and innovation studies treated patient knowledge as an instrument for design. Social science‐informed approaches focused on knowledge as a social process distributed between patients through communities of practice or centred on enacting embodied and situated knowledge. Our review shows how narrow framings risk undermining the richness of T1D knowledge practices with implications for technology development and implementation in the context of diabetes care. We argue for stronger engagement with sociologically informed approaches in future research to attend to the multiplicity of knowledge practices.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism

Endocrinology, Diabetes and MetabolismMedicine