Trial reportDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025
Diabetes body project eating disorder prevention program-Descriptive content analysis of participant and facilitator feedback in a multinational randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. 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.
- Diabetes body project eating disorder prevention program-Descriptive content analysis of participant and facilitator feedback in a multinational randomized controlled trial.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo examine and describe feedback after participation in a novel eating disorder prevention program for young women with type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Body Project) in a multinational randomised controlled trial.
methodsWritten feedback from participants (N = 109) and facilitators (N = 19) at four sites (Europe and US) was analysed using descriptive, manifest content analysis. Open-ended questions included motivation for participation, most/less valuable aspects of the program and suggestions for improvement.
results"Community" was the most important motivator and most valued aspect, reported by one-third of participants. When asked about less valued aspects of the program, participants and facilitators most frequently reported "none/not sure/everything was valuable" and "nothing" respectively. Suggestions to improve the program common for participants and facilitators were "more creative exercises", specific for participants after "none" was "limit homework/obligations" and specific for facilitators was "more flexibility to move away from the script". The three most frequently perceived barriers for participation reported by participants and facilitators were "requiring personal vulnerability", "time and energy constraints" and the "group setting".
conclusionsParticipants and facilitators expressed overall high satisfaction with the program, specifically the value of T1D community. Additionally, they suggested incorporating more creative exercises. Future research should aim at widespread implementation and addressing barriers to participation.
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.