SynthesisBMC pediatrics2024
Benefits, implementation and sustainability of innovative paediatric models of care for children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2024. 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.
- Models of care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe evidence about the acceptability and effectiveness of innovative paediatric models of care for Type 1 diabetes is limited. To address this gap, we synthesised literature on implemented models of care, model components, outcomes, and determinants of implementation and sustainability.
methodsA systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Database searches of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus were conducted. Empirical studies focused on Type 1 diabetes paediatric models of care, published from 2010 to 2022 in English were included.
resultsNineteen extant studies reported on models and their associations with health and psychosocial outcomes, patient engagement with healthcare, and healthcare costs. Thirteen studies described multidisciplinary teamwork, education and capacity building that supported self-care. Four studies involved shared decision making between providers and patients, and two discussed outreach support where technology was an enabler. Fourteen studies reported improvements in health outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control), mostly for models that included multidisciplinary teams, education, and capacity building (11 studies), outreach support or shared care (3 studies). Four studies reported improvements in quality of life, three reported increased satisfaction for patients and carers and, and one reported improved communication. Four of five studies describing shared care and decision-making reported improvements in quality of life, support and motivation. Outreach models reported no negative outcomes, however, accessing some models was limited by technological and cost barriers. Eight studies reported on model sustainability, but only half reported implementation determinants; none reported applying a theoretical framework to guide their research.
conclusionSome health and psychosocial benefits were associated with newer models. To address knowledge gaps about implementation determinants and model sustainability, longitudinal studies are needed to inform future adoption of innovative models of care for children with Type 1 diabetes.
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.