ArticleDiabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association2025
Utilizing Crowdsourcing to Incorporate the Voice of the Family When Developing a Diabetes Distress Intervention.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDiabetes distress (DD) is the negative emotional toll of living with or caring for type 1 diabetes, encompassing the pervasiveness of its daily demands. We recently developed Remedy to Diabetes Distress (R2D2), a screen-to-treat intervention for families of school-aged children with type 1 diabetes. This article reports on the use of crowdsourcing methods to design the intervention and capture the voice of parent stakeholders. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe recruited 41 parents of 8- to 12-year-olds with type 1 diabetes. In a secure online social network, we posted study questions to participants, who could respond to our questions and view and comment on other participants' responses (i.e., participants could interact as a "crowd"). An iterative approach allowed our questions to move from broad to specific, enabling parent input on treatment content.
resultsUsing a conceptual model of DD, we examined responses and applied codes to distill qualitative categories. We established substantial agreement on identified categories, with fidelity at κ = 0.615. In addition to providing broad feedback (e.g., on preferred language for common phrases used in type 1 diabetes interventions), parents also provided feedback on specific treatment components and the overall tone of the intervention. Parents highlighted benefit-finding and positive talk/self-talk as pertinent for incorporation into treatment.
conclusionThis study illustrates the use of crowdsourcing methods to capture the voices of parents of school-aged children with type 1 diabetes when designing a DD intervention. The next phase of R2D2 will be a small pre-trial to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, followed by a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT), during which family voices will continue to be incorporated.
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.