Type 1 diabetes management responsibilities between adolescents with T1D and their parents: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diabetes self-management for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a complex and multifaceted process that requires careful consideration of a supportive or shared approach to care. The purpose of this review was to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding the nature of adolescent-parent interactions and relationships in the context of T1D management. Of particular interest was the role of interdependence in this relationship. METHODS: An integrative review of the literature was conducted between January 2021 and April 2021 using Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) methodological strategies. RESULTS: Eleven studies published between 2003 and 2018 met the review criteria. Thematic analysis identified the following three themes related to parent-adolescent relationships in care including the Effectiveness of Parental Involvement and T1D Management, Shared Responsibility and T1D Task Management, and Gaining Independence in T1D Management. This review highlights the importance of both parent and adolescent shared involvement in T1D management. In particular, parental involvement appears necessary for improved glycemic control, better adherence to the T1D management regime, and for practicing self-management in adolescents with T1D. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Better understanding of the parent-child interaction in diabetes care will provide important information to aid family nurses to identify, support, and help maintain the sharing of T1D management responsibilities between parents and their adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".