MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312669528 · doi:10.2196/43535

Improvement of Selected Psychological Parameters and Quality of Life of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Transition From Multiple Daily Injections and Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Directly to the MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: Post hoc Analysis of a Randomized Control Study

2022· article· en· W4312669528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katarzyna Cyranka, Bartłomiej Matejko, Anna Juza, Beata Kieć‐Wilk, Sabina Krzyżowska, Ohad Cohen, Julien Da Silva, Maxim Lushchyk, Maciej T. Małecki, Tomasz Klupa

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusAnxietyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialCoping (psychology)PopulationType 1 diabetesPhysical therapyInternal medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While introducing new technologies and methods of treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), it seems essential to monitor whether modern technologies in diabetes treatment may improve the psychological and emotional status of patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the baseline psychological parameters of patients with T1DM during investigation of the direct transition from multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system and to evaluate changes in the psychological well-being and quality of life (QoL) after the transition in these individuals versus the control group. METHODS: ] 7.2%, SD 1.0%) completed the study (AHCL: n=20, 54%; MDI+SMBG: n=17, 46%). Psychological parameters (level of stress, coping mechanisms, level of anxiety, self-efficacy level, acceptance of illness, locus of control of illness, life satisfaction, QoL) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study using 10 psychological questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline, the general level of stress of the examined patients was higher than in the general healthy Polish population (P=.001), but coping strategies used in stressful situations were significantly more effective and the level of self-efficacy (P<.001) was much higher than in the general population. The patients in this study accepted their illness more than patients with diabetes from the general Polish population (P<.001), but they felt that their health does not depend on them compared to the general population (P<.001). The overall life satisfaction was similar to that of the general population (P=.161). After 3 months from transition, the AHCL group reported an increase in 4 scales of the QoL-feeling well (P=.042), working (P=.012), eating as I would like (P=.011), and doing normal things (P=.034)-in comparison to the control group, where no significant change occurred. The level of both state anxiety and trait anxiety decreased in the AHCL group: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) X1 scores (P=.009), STAI X1 stens (P=.013), and STAI X2 scores (P=.022). The AHCL group became more emotion oriented in stressful situations (Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations [CISS] E; P=.043) and significantly less self-blaming after 3 months of the study (P=.020). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the patients who decided to take part in the transition study were characterized by higher levels of stress than the general healthy population but had better coping strategies and self-efficacy. Furthermore, transitioning from MDI+SMBG treatment to the AHCL in patients naive to technology may significantly improve psychological well-being and QoL within 3 months. The rapidity of these changes suggests that they may be related to the significant improvement in glycemic outcomes but also significantly less burdened diabetes self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616391; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04616391.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207