The Relationship of Mental Health & Family Functioning with Maintaining Optimal Glycaemic Control in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes and mental health issues within the family is well recognised, but the degree of difficulty that is associated with modest sub-optimal control is not.66 families agreed to take part in the study, and they were divided into two groups according to the quality of metabolic control (good or sub-optimal).Of the 37 boys, 19 had suboptimal metabolic control, and of the 27 girls, 15 did not have a good control.Mother and child participants provided demographic information, and mothers completed the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the revised version of the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Questionnaire (SNAP IV), elements of the Ontario Child Health Scale, and the Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES IV).The results from these scales were compared to the quality of the children's glycaemic control.Sub-optimal control was associated with the increased emotional symptoms and behavioural difficulties in the young person (p < 0.0001), and increased mental health difficulties in their mothers (p < 0.001).These elements had an adverse impact on the level of satisfaction with family life.Having sub-optimal glycaemic control is associated with an increased risk of having mental health symptoms, and a possible mechanism for this association is explored.Even modest deterioration in a family's mental health can have an adverse effect upon glycaemic control, and should be assessed as a routine in review clinics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".