ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2018
A mixed methods study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool App in paediatric diabetes care in preparation for a longitudinal cohort study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
- Digital Health Interventions Providing Behavioral Assessment and Goal Prioritization Support: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Using Mixed Methods Research in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: a Methodological Review.Current diabetes reports · 2023Review
- Self-care support of diet and the gut in the routine care of school-age children with long-term conditions: An integrative review.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2022Review
- Exploring determinants and strategies for implementing self-management support text messaging interventions in safety net clinics.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Implementation of Technology-Delivered Diabetes Self-care Interventions in Clinical Care: a Narrative Review.Current diabetes reports · 2020Review
- Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum to:2017
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn evaluation study was carried out to determine the feasibility of integrating the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (ADNAT) App into UK paediatric diabetes care, to ascertain best practice standards and to determine methodological recommendations for a future cohort study.
methodsA non-randomised, cohort, mixed methods study design was used to ensure equality of access to ADNAT for all participants at three sites in the North West of England. Following UK Medical Research Council guidance, the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness (potential and perceived), adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework was used to guide study objectives and feasibility outcomes. Patients who completed ADNAT (completers) were compared with those who failed to complete (non-completers). Patients' glycaemic control (HbA
resultsEighty-nine patients were recruited. Withdrawal rates were low at 4.5% (
conclusionsThe combined data showed that ADNAT has the potential to be a clinically viable tool. It has demonstrated the need for a randomised design that is tailored for a 'hard to reach' adolescent population. A cluster randomised controlled trial that involves sequential but random rollout of ADNAT over multiple time periods may be the most appropriate and is currently being considered for the larger study.
trial registrationNIHR Children's Clinical Research Network, UKCRN ID 6633.
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.