Multisystemic Therapy Improves the Patient-Provider Relationship in Families of Adolescents with Poorly Controlled Insulin Dependent Diabetes

Integrated care for children and young people with special health and care needs: a systematic review

CONTEXT

There is a dearth of high-quality evidence on integrated, coordinated and cost-effective care for children with special health and care needs (CSHCN).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of integrated/coordinated care models for CSHCN.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Ovid Medline(R), HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS), PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Global Health and PubMed.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria comprised (1) randomised trials, including cluster randomised trials; (2) an integrated/coordinated care intervention; (3) for children and young people under 25 with special healthcare needs including medical complexity; (4) assessing child-centred outcomes, health-related quality of life among parents and carers, and health or social care use, processes of care and satisfaction with care.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted and assessed by two researchers, and descriptive data were synthesised according to outcome and intervention.

RESULTS

14 randomised controlled studies were included. Seven out of the 14 studies had a dedicated key worker/care coordinator as a vital part of the integrated/coordinated care intervention; however, the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was either 'low' or 'very low'.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were mostly from high-income countries. Variable study outcomes and quality of evidence precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence favours integrated care for CSHCN using a dedicated key worker/care coordinator; however, heterogeneity in study outcomes and definitions of CSHCN limit the strength and utility of evidence obtained. Recommendations are made for improving integrated care practice, research and evaluation which are important for evidence-based health services for CSHCN.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020209320.

Impact of the Patient-Doctor Relationship on Treatment Outcomes in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

(1) Background: Despite the recognized importance of the patient-doctor relationship (PDR) for pediatric diabetes management, the literature presents diverse and emerging findings regarding its impact on treatment outcomes for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). (2) Methods: Using a meta-analytic approach, a comprehensive search for relevant studies was conducted across major databases, from the earliest study to June 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies on PDR and T1D outcomes in underaged individuals, providing quantitative results. (3) Results: Fifteen reports were included, showing a small but significant overall effect size (r = 0.165, p < 0.05) of PDR on T1D outcomes. Moderator analyses revealed significant associations from elements of PDR, duration of diagnosis, outcome assessment methods, information reporters, and being Caucasian. Demographic variables like gender, age, not being Caucasian, and caregiver's marital status did not significantly impact the association. Specific elements of PDR, such as clinician's objectives, communication, partnership, respect, and supportive care, showed significant positive effect sizes, while telecommunication did not. (4) Conclusions: A strong PDR is essential for managing diabetes in children, particularly in the early years of diagnosis. Future studies should use quantitative designs and include diverse demographics to better understand PDR's connection to T1D outcomes.

Meeting the Needs of Emerging Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Living in a Rural Area With Mobile Health Interventions: Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Emerging adults (EAs; age 18-30 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have more challenges with diabetes management and glycemic control than other age groups. Living in a rural community introduces additional unique diabetes care challenges due to limited access to specialty care and ancillary support services. Yet, few interventions have been developed to improve diabetes management in rural-dwelling EAs with T1D.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand the diabetes management experiences of older adolescents and EAs (age 16-25 years) with T1D living in a rural area and to assess their perceptions of the acceptability of 4 fully automated mobile health (mHealth) interventions to support diabetes management.

METHODS

EAs were identified by clinical staff through convenience sampling. In total, 8 EAs participated in 1 focus group and 1 EA completed an individual interview; all data were collected over Zoom. Facilitators explored EAs' experiences living in a rural community with T1D and discussed EAs' impressions of, feedback on, and recommendations for improving 4 mHealth interventions to meet the specific needs of EAs with T1D living in rural communities. Discussions were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 9 EAs (aged 18.8, SD 2.7 years; 5, 56% men; 8, 89% White) with a duration of diabetes of 8.6 (SD 4.3) years participated. They described experiences with diabetes stigma (attributing diabetes to poor lifestyle choices) and feelings of self-consciousness (hyperawareness) in their rural communities. They attributed these experiences to the small size of their communities ("everyone knows") and community members' lack of knowledge about diabetes (unable to differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes). In contrast, EAs reported high levels of social support for diabetes and diabetes care from family, friends, and other community members, but low support for medical needs. The location of their diabetes care providers and the limited accessibility of diabetes-specific and general medical care services in their local community created a challenging medical care context. Overall, EAs found mHealth interventions appealing due to their digital delivery and highlighted features that increased accessibility (voiceovers and simple, jargon-free language), individualization (ability to tailor intervention content and delivery), and applicability to their own lives and other EAs with T1D (relatability of vignettes and other content). EAs suggestions for improving the interventions included more opportunities to tailor the interventions to their preferences (greater frequency and duration, ability to adapt content to emerging needs), increasing opportunities for peer support within the interventions (friend and significant other as identified support person, connecting with peers beyond their local community), and making the tone of intervention components more casual and engaging.

CONCLUSIONS

mHealth interventions aligned with EAs' needs and preferences are a promising strategy to support EAs in communities where social support and resources might be limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A, not a clinical trial.

Adolescents and type 1 diabetes: A grounded theory on adolescents' experiences of adaptation to type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE

Type 1 diabetes influences adolescents' health status and therapeutic management. Adaptation for adolescents with type 1 diabetes is considered a significant issue for this cohort group and is based on many factors, including availability of resources, and family and community support. Thus, this study aimed to explore Palestinian adolescents' experiences of adaptation to type 1 diabetes in the West Bank.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A qualitative grounded theory approach was adopted. The purposive sample consisted of fourteen adolescents aged from 12 to 18 years and diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The data were collected using semi-structured and face-to-face individual interviews during the period from March to June 2023. A constant comparative method was used to analyze data.

FINDINGS

The core category had emerged with categories and subcategories. There were three categories and ten subcategories including difficulties in the management of type 1 diabetes, for example, "insulin injections, dietary management, and control of HbA1c levels", burdens of type1 diabetes, for example, "burden regarding follow-up treatment, the burden of interaction and communication, emotional burden, and economic burden", and fears and worries of unexpected future life, for example, "worries about disease complications, worries regarding social relationships, and worries about marriage and parenthood".

CONCLUSION

Adolescents diagnosed with type 1 diabetes suffer from difficult experiences influencing their adaptation to this disease.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Counseling programs concerning self-care management for those adolescents need to be developed in addition to support programs. Health education programs are needed to develop their adaptation and coping skills to these experiences.

Interventions Across the Translational Research Spectrum: Addressing Disparities Among Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Racial and ethnic minoritized youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are at elevated risk for health disparities. Few intervention studies have been conducted for these youth and evidence to support best practices to address their needs is lacking. Existing evidence supports the use of brief trials of diabetes technology with structured support from clinic staff, culturally tailored interventions such as language-congruent clinical care, and use of community health workers as promising directions to improve health outcomes. Clinicians and researchers should work collaboratively with community members to improve the quality of T1D intervention science for racial and ethnic minoritized youth.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Background: Partnership, engagement, and collaboration (PEC) are critical factors in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Despite a growing recognition that incorporating PEC strategies in D&I research is likely to increase the relevance, feasibility, impacts, and of evidence-based interventions or practices (EBIs, EBPs), conceptual frameworks and methodologies to guide the development and testing of PEC strategies in D&I research are lacking. To address this methodological gap, a review was conducted to summarize what we know, what we think we know, and what we need to know about PEC to inform D&I research.

Methods: A cross-field scoping review, drawing upon a broad range of PEC related literature in health, was conducted. Publications reviewed focused on factors influencing PEC, and processes, mechanisms and strategies for promoting effective PEC. The review was conducted separately for three forms of partnerships that are commonly used in D&I research: (1) consumer-provider or patient-implementer partnership; (2) delivery system or implementation team partnership; and (3) sustainment/support or interagency/community partnership. A total of 39 studies, of which 21 were review articles, were selected for an in-depth review.

Results: Across three forms of partnerships, four domains (cognitive, interpersonal/affective, behavioral, and contextual domains) were consistently identified as factors and strategies for promoting PEC. Depending on the stage (preparation or execution) and purpose of the partnership (regulating performance or managing maintenance), certain PEC strategies are more or less relevant. Recent developments of PEC frameworks, such as Partnership Stage of Change and multiple dynamic processes, provide more comprehensive conceptual explanations for PEC mechanisms, which can better guide PEC strategies selection and integration in D&I research.

Conclusions: This review contributes to D&I knowledge by identifying critical domain factors, processes, or mechanisms, and key strategies for PEC, and offers a multi-level PEC framework for future research to build the evidence base. However, more research is needed to test PEC mechanisms.