Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20875112›Full record

Trial reportBMC pediatrics2010

Evidence into practice: evaluating a child-centred intervention for diabetes medicine management. The EPIC Project.

Jane P Noyes, Anne Williams, Davina Allen, Peter Brocklehurst, Cynthia Carter, John W Gregory, Carol Jackson, Mary Lewis, Lesley Lowes, Ian T Russell and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jane P NoyesCentre for Health-Related Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. jane.noyes@bangor.ac.uk
Anne Williams
Davina Allen
Peter Brocklehurst
Cynthia Carter
John W Gregory
Carol Jackson
Mary Lewis
Lesley Lowes
Ian T Russell
Joanne Rycroft-Malone
Janice Sharp
Mark Samuels
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Rhiannon Whitaker
Cardiff University · GBBangor University · GBRoche (United Kingdom) · GBRoyal United Hospital · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/1704/211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of high quality, child-centred and effective health information to support development of self-care practices and expertise in children with acute and long-term conditions. In type 1 diabetes, clinical guidelines indicate that high-quality, child-centred information underpins achievement of optimal glycaemic control with the aim of minimising acute readmissions and reducing the risk of complications in later life. This paper describes the development of a range of child-centred diabetes information resources and outlines the study design and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the information resources in routine practice. The aim of the diabetes information intervention is to improve children and young people's quality of life by increasing self-efficacy in managing their type 1 diabetes. METHODS/

designWe used published evidence, undertook qualitative research and consulted with children, young people and key stakeholders to design and produce a range of child-centred, age-appropriate children's diabetes diaries, carbohydrate recording sheets, and assembled child-centred, age-appropriate diabetes information packs containing published information in a folder that can be personalized by children and young people with pens and stickers. Resources have been designed for children/young people 6-10; 11-15; and 16-18 years.To evaluate the information resources, we designed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and implementation in routine practice of individually tailored, age-appropriate diabetes diaries and information packs for children and young people age 6-18 years, compared with currently available standard practice.Children and young people will be stratified by gender, length of time since diagnosis (< 2 years and > 2 years) and age (6-10; 11-15; and 16-18 years). The following data will be collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months: PedsQL (generic, diabetes and parent versions), and EQ-5 D (parent and child); NHS resource use and process data (questionnaire and interview). Baseline and subsequent HbA1c measurements, blood glucose meter use, readings and insulin dose will be taken from routine test results and hand-held records when attending routine 3-4 monthly clinic visits.The primary outcome measure is diabetes self-efficacy and quality-of-life (Diabetes PedsQL). Secondary outcomes include: HbA1c, generic quality of life, routinely collected NHS/child-held data, costs, service use, acceptability and utility.

trial registrationISRCTN17551624.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicQuality of LifeAdolescentBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringChildDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinMaleSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID20875112
PMCPMC2955672
OpenAlexW2101582408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.