Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42895779›Full record

SynthesisDiabetes/metabolism research and reviews2026

Professional Stakeholders' Perspectives on Early Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in Children: A Systematic Review.

Francesca Gatti, Bianca M Milazzo, Lauren M Quinn, Antonio Catarinella, Gaia Perego, Francesca Milano, Karin Lange, Sheila Greenfield, Renuka Dias, Jurgen Vercauteren and 10 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Francesca GattiSchool of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9088-0026
Bianca M MilazzoDiabetes and Endocrinology Department, General Medicine, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1943-6289
Lauren M QuinnInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0500-4417
Antonio CatarinellaDepartment of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8911-495X
Gaia PeregoSchool of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9968-813X
Francesca MilanoClinical and Health Psychology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Karin LangeDepartment of Medical Psychology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-2025
Sheila GreenfieldDepartment of Applied Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-4114
Renuka DiasInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5743-1077
Jurgen VercauterenDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Metabolism, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0698-4736
Adya RaoInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Aymeric MahieuHealth Economics and Value Assessment Department, Sanofi, Paris, Île-de-France, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-2783
Carmen Hurtado Del PozoResearch Department, Breakthrough T1D, New York, New York, USA.
Valentina E Di MatteiSchool of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Katharine BarnardSpotlight-AQ Limited, Portcheste, Hampshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3888-3123
Chantal MathieuDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Metabolism, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4055-5233
Parth NarendranInstitute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4583-8793
Emanuele BosiDiabetes and Endocrinology Department, General Medicine, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-2495
Olga BoikoDepartment of Applied Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1310-1949
EDENT1FI

Funding

EDENT1FI 101132379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early screening for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is receiving increasing attention as presymptomatic screening initiatives and disease-modifying therapies continue to expand. However, the perspectives of professional stakeholders, who play a pivotal role in implementation, patient engagement, and health system preparedness, have not been systematically synthesised. We conducted a systematic review to examine professional views on paediatric early T1D screening. Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA) and grey literature were searched through January 2026. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, predominantly involving paediatricians and diabetes specialists; nurses, genetic counsellors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals were represented in few studies. Methodological appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) identified recurring limitations in sample representativeness and potential nonresponse bias. Given the heterogeneity and primarily descriptive nature of the study design and outcomes, findings were synthesised narratively. Professional perspectives varied according to the population targeted, professional group studied, screening scenario, and the implementation context. Where directly compared, support was greater for at-risk than for general-population screening. Reported benefits included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prevention, earlier clinical engagement, and improved preparedness for families. However, concerns persisted regarding psychosocial burden, workforce capacity, and unclear referral and follow-up pathways. More favourable evaluations were reported in some structured programmes, although these findings may reflect reliance on existing infrastructures and targeted participant selection. By consolidating previously fragmented evidence, this review identifies recurring clinical, psychosocial, and organisational considerations relevant to paediatric T1D screening. These findings primarily reflect clinical perspectives and indicate conditional rather than uniform support. Further studies should evaluate how standardised pathways, professional training, and integrated psychosocial support affect the feasibility and acceptability of screening across different healthcare contexts.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Health PersonnelMass ScreeningStakeholder ParticipationChildEarly DiagnosisHumanspresymptomatic type 1 diabetesprofessional stakeholderssystematic reviewT1D screening programme

Identifiers

PMID42895779
PMCPMC13679756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.