Living with Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes: Adolescents' and Parents' Search for Harmony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents have difficulty successfully sustaining use of continuous glucose monitoring even when it is introduced to experienced pump users. However, little is known about how adolescents and parents perceive and manage sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT) in daily life. The purpose of this study was to explore adolescents' and parents' daily experience of living with SAPT. METHODS: We used an interpretive phenomenological study design. We conducted in-depth, digitally recorded interviews with 7 adolescents and 9 parents recruited through 1 Canadian pediatric diabetes program. Adolescents who participated were 13 to 17 years of age with type 1 diabetes mellitus and had experience (current or past) living with SAPT. Transcripts of the interviews were subjected to a thematic analysis guided by the procedure outlined by Colaizzi. RESULTS: The overarching theme, seeking harmony, reflected adolescents' and parents' daily struggles with balancing multiple tensions that arose from managing SAPT and harmonizing seemingly opposing choices that were brought to the fore, while also struggling to live with both wellness and chronic illness. Four themes constituted the struggle to find harmony living with diabetes managed with SAPT: struggling with hopes and expectations for SAPT, being ready for SAPT, living the burdens of continuous glucose monitoring and creating partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers can facilitate adolescent and parental decision-making about the optimal timing for SAPT introduction. Success with SAPT requires exploration of adolescent and parental expectations for SAPT as well as the degree to which parents have previously fostered their adolescent's involvement in and responsibility for diabetes management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".