Supporting Parents of Children With Type 1 Diabetes: Experiment Comparing Message and Delivery Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a chronic condition that typically affects young age group people and is estimated to afflict approximately 154,000 people younger than 20 years in the United States. Since T1D typically impacts children, parents must play an active role in helping their child manage the condition. This creates a substantial burden and responsibility for the parents. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study sought to find ways to help parents with children with T1D in coping with stresses related to managing and monitoring their child's disease by providing informational support, either about parenting a child with T1D or general parenting messages through different channels. METHODS: Parents (N=120) of children with T1D were recruited through an email listserv through local T1D Facebook groups. A total of 102 participants were included in the analysis. We conducted a 2×2 experimental study over an 8-week period to test 2 types of messages (diabetes specific vs general parenting) and the medium in which the messages were delivered (Facebook vs SMS text message). Diabetes behavior, informational support, emotional support, and quality of life were the main outcomes of interest. RESULTS: =4.59; P=.005). There were no differences between message and medium groups on informational support, emotional support, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the medium-Facebook or SMS text messaging-does not matter for parents' perceptions of social support or quality of life. The diabetes message group reported higher levels of disease management. Finally, the groups with the diabetes support messages were more satisfied than those who received general parenting messages. The findings provide starting guidance for the development of social support interventions for this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".