Trial reportDiabetes care2017
Predicting and Reducing Driving Mishaps Among Drivers With Type 1 Diabetes.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022Guideline
- Telehealth delivery of motivational interviewing for diabetes management: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Patient education and counseling · 2022Pooled it
- Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires Validated in Brazilian Portuguese: A Systematic Review.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Pooled it
- Diabetes and Driving: How Predictive Technologies Will Alter Ethical and Legal Responsibilities.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Article
- Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Journal of diabetes · 2022Article
- Assessing Willingness to Engage in Risky Driving Behaviour Using Naturalistic Driving Footage: The Role of Age and Gender.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Diabetes and driving recommendations among healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia. A significant gap that requires action.Saudi medical journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTwo aims of this study were to develop and validate A) a metric to identify drivers with type 1 diabetes at high risk of future driving mishaps and B) an online intervention to reduce mishaps among high-risk drivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsTo achieve aim A, in study 1, 371 drivers with type 1 diabetes from three U.S. regions completed a series of established questionnaires about diabetes and driving. They recorded their driving mishaps over the next 12 months. Questionnaire items that uniquely discriminated drivers who did and did not have subsequent driving mishaps were assembled into the Risk Assessment of Diabetic Drivers (RADD) scale. In study 2, 1,737 drivers with type 1 diabetes from all 50 states completed the RADD online. Among these, 118 low-risk (LR) and 372 high-risk (HR) drivers qualified for and consented to participate in a 2-month treatment period followed by 12 monthly recordings of driving mishaps. To address aim B, HR participants were randomized to receive either routine care (RC) or the online intervention "DiabetesDriving.com" (DD.com). Half of the DD.com participants received a motivational interview (MI) at the beginning and end of the treatment period to boost participation and efficacy. All of the LR participants were assigned to RC. In both studies, the primary outcome variable was driving mishaps.
resultsRelated to aim A, in study 1, the RADD demonstrated 61% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Participants in the upper third of the RADD distribution (HR), compared with those in the lower third (LR), reported 3.03 vs. 0.87 mishaps/driver/year, respectively (
conclusionsThe RADD identified higher-risk drivers, and identification seemed relatively stable across time, samples, and procedures. This 11-item questionnaire could inform patients at higher risk, and their clinicians, that they should take preventive steps to reduce driving mishaps, which was accomplished in aim B using DD.com.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.