ArticleDiabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association2025
Measuring Outcomes for Community Partner Engagement: The Case of the High-Fidelity Wraparound Program for Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes.
Article in Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this article is to describe the processes for convening and engaging an advisory board to guide the conduct of a research study of the Type 1 Diabetes Wraparound Program (T1DWP) and associated outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe recruited a diverse advisory board (
resultsWe received 10 ± 3 survey responses per meeting, with representation from every role at each meeting. The overall stakeholder satisfaction score increased from 4.5 at baseline to 5.0 at month 6 and was maintained at 5.0 at month 24 as the research team responded to feedback. Average scores for specific processes of engagement were high: expectation setting (4.6 ± 0.3), co-learning (4.6 ± 0.3), transparency (4.6 ± 0.3), and decision-making (4.7 ± 0.2). Changes to the T1DWP study resulting from advisory board input included adding nine additional patient-reported measures and specific diabetes resources and programming. Furthermore, the board contributed to hiring of T1DWP study staff, fundraising activities, and clinical integration of the T1DWP, demonstrating stakeholder empowerment and knowledge translation to the clinical setting.
conclusionOur processes led to several meaningful contributions to the research study. This experience illustrates the willingness and importance of partnering with stakeholders to help shape resources and programs in pediatric diabetes intervention research.
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.