ArticleJournal of pediatric psychology2020
Does Self-Efficacy Mediate the Link Between Impulse Control and Diabetes Adherence?
Article in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mindfulness, disordered eating, and impulsivity in relation to glycemia among adolescents with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemia from the Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change (FLEX) intervention trial.Pediatric diabetes · 2022Trial
- Adherence to daily growth hormone therapy in Japan: real-world data from the Melon Nikki™ app and device.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Article
- Influence of Family Social Support and Diabetes Self-Efficacy on the Emotional Wellbeing of Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Effect of Self-Administration of Medication During Hospitalization on Patient's Self-Efficacy and Medication Adherence After Discharge.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that diabetes self-efficacy mediates the relationship between impulse control and type 1 diabetes (T1D) management from ages 8 to 18 years, using multilevel modeling.
methodsParticipants included 117 youth with T1D and their parents. Youth (aged 8-16 years at baseline) and parents were assessed 5 times over 2 years. Using a cohort sequential design, we first estimated the growth trajectory of adherence from age 8 to 18 years, then specified a multilevel mediation model using impulse control as the main predictor, diabetes self-efficacy as the mediator, and changes in adherence (both within- and between-individuals) as the outcome.
resultsAccording to youth-reported adherence only, self-efficacy partially mediated the within-person effect of impulse control on adherence. On occasions when youth reported increases in impulse control, they tended to report higher adherence, and this was, in part, due to increases in youths' perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy accounted for approximately 21% of the within-person relationship between impulse control and youth-reported adherence. There was no association between impulse control and adherence between-individuals. Impulse control and self-efficacy were not related to parent-reported adherence.
conclusionEnvironments that enrich youth with confidence in their own diabetes-related abilities may benefit self-care behaviors in youth with T1D, but such increases in youths' perceived competence do not fully account for, or override, the behavioral benefits of impulse control. Efforts to improve adherence in youth with T1D will benefit from consideration of both impulse control and self-efficacy.
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.