Clinical Utility of Psychoeducational Interventions for Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is a challenging time for the medical management of type 1 diabetes. Thus, a range of psychoeducational interventions have been developed to improve diabetes management among youth. Systematic reviews of this literature have emphasized the effectiveness of interventions for improving patient outcomes. However, knowledge beyond what works is required for interventions to be adopted into routine clinical practice. The objective of this scoping review was to map the clinical utility of the literature based on a variety of indicators, including the problem base, context placement, information gain, transparency, pragmatism, and patient-centeredness of the research. This lens for reviewing research is consistent with the biopsychosocial model and an increasing focus on reducing disability, including activity limitation and participation restriction. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINHAL databases were searched for evaluative psychoeducational intervention studies published between January 2005 and October 2020. Two cited reference searches and one reference list search were also performed. Fifty studies describing 46 different interventions were identified. The clinical utility of the interventions was highly variable. A detailed overview of the clinical utility of the literature is provided with an emphasis on current gaps and shortcomings to be addressed in future research. This work helps advance the translation of clinical knowledge into practice in schools, homes, and communities; and, ultimately, improve the health and well-being of adolescents with T1D.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".