Association of stigma, diabetes distress and self‐efficacy with quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes preparing to transition to adult care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In type 1 diabetes (T1D), psychosocial factors may impact quality of life (QOL) and clinical outcomes, but remain understudied, particularly during late adolescence. Our aim was to determine whether stigma, diabetes distress and self-efficacy are associated with QOL in adolescents with T1D as they are preparing to transition to adult care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adolescents (ages 16-17 years) with T1D participating in the Group Education Trial to Improve Transition (GET-IT) in Montreal, Canada. Participants completed validated questionnaires on stigma using the Barriers to Diabetes Adherence (BDA) stigma subscale, self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Self-Management Measure [SEDM], score 1-10), diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale for Adults with type 1 diabetes) and QOL (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory [PedsQL] 4.0 Generic Core Scale and PedsQL 3.2 Diabetes Module). We examined associations of stigma, diabetes distress and self-efficacy with QOL using multivariate linear regression models adjusted for sex, diabetes duration, socioeconomic status and HbA1c. RESULTS: Of 128 adolescents with T1D, 76 (59%) self-reported having the diabetes-related stigma and 29 (22.7%) reported experiencing diabetes distress. Those with stigma had lower diabetes-specific and general QOL scores compared with those without stigma, and stigma and diabetes distress were both associated with lower diabetes-specific QOL and lower general QOL. Self-efficacy was associated with higher diabetes-specific and general QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma and diabetes distress are associated with lower QOL, whereas self-efficacy is associated with higher QOL in adolescents with T1D preparing to transfer to adult care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".