ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2022
Children's and young People's diabetes services: What works well and what doesn't?
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the DigiBete App, a Self-Management App for Type 1 Diabetes: Experiences of Young People, Families, and Healthcare Professionals.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The first year of care, post diagnosis, is pivotal for children and young people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This study evaluated a paediatric type 1 diabetes intervention, the 'First Year of Care', designed to maximise the care that newly diagnosed children and young people received. Study design: An observational mixed methods approach, underpinned by the Influencer Framework. Methods: A purposeful, non-probability sample of children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their families, and healthcare professionals were invited to take part. Data were collected through medical records of thirty-two newly diagnosed children and young people, plus thirty seven semi-structured interviews and exposure to six concurrent sources of influence through a questionnaire. Results: For many participants, HbA1c levels were within the optimal range by the time of their first clinic visit post-diagnosis and continued to stay within this range throughout the first year of care. Healthcare professionals prioritised the 'First Year of Care' intervention. Positive practices included: a cohesive and collaborative approach; patient-centred care; latest health technology and embedded structured education. Unusually, different multidisciplinary team members were located in one place.Data indicated statistically significant differences in total sources of influence score (t [35] = 2.331, p = 0.026); healthcare professionals' scores were higher compared to children. This suggests that children and young people have less social capital to self-manage their diabetes effectively. Greater encouragement and assistance from healthcare professionals and social networks may be needed. Conclusions: This paper identifies contemporary issues in practice and highlights the strengths and challenges for a paediatric diabetes intervention. The findings confirm the potential of layered approaches to behaviour change in managing type 1 diabetes across multiple domains of influence. Our study strongly suggests enhancing social motivation among children, young people and families to support successful long-term engagement in a paediatric diabetes intervention. Findings demonstrate healthcare professionals are key in delivering the intervention, along with opportunities to improve patient care, experience and outcomes.
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.