ArticleFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2026
Psychosocial support for adult-onset type 1 diabetes: the living with and adapting to type 1 diabetes programme - a cross-national feasibility study.
Article in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial challenges related to adult-onset type 1 diabetes are not systematically addressed in routine diabetes care. The Living with and Adapting to DiabetEs pRogramme (LADDER) was developed to support psychosocial adaptation to diabetes through two distinct interventions: 1) one-to-one consultations, and 2) group sessions. The LADDER interventions were tested in Denmark and the UK to evaluate the feasibility of 1) the research processes; 2) the delivery of the intervention; 3) collection of psychosocial and clinical outcomes and perceived benefits of participation; and to 4) identify key areas for improvement of the interventions. Methods: We aimed to examine the feasibility of the one-to-one consultations via a controlled design with either non-random (Denmark) or random allocation (UK) to intervention or usual care and the group sessions via a wait-list randomised trial (UK). Psychosocial outcomes were collected through questionnaires, and clinical outcomes were obtained from electronic records. A concurrent process evaluation was conducted through interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. Results: The recruitment target was reached in Denmark. Due to a lower-than-expected number of participants, randomisation was abandoned in the UK. Questionnaire response rates were low, and clinical data were difficult to obtain. Due to uncontrolled study designs, small sample sizes, and high questionnaire attrition, quantitative comparisons between intervention and control groups were not feasible. Qualitative findings suggested that the LADDER interventions may support psychosocial adaptation by facilitating reflection, articulation of concerns, and shared understanding within supportive clinical and peer contexts. Conclusion: Conducting an evaluation of the LADDER interventions through a controlled study was not feasible, likely due to small study populations at each site, combined with changes in clinical working following COVID-19. We suggest using a realist evaluation approach for a future larger study to explore what aspects of LADDER works, for whom and in which contexts.
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.