Diabetes Distress and Transition Readiness in Youths with Type 1 Diabetes Transitioning from Pediatric to Adult Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Youths with type 1 diabetes transitioning from pediatric to adult care are known to experience significant glycemic excursions and medical complications. Diabetes distress and transition readiness are two potentially related constructs involved in this transition process, but the relationship between them has not been extensively studied. Hypothesis. Lower diabetes distress is associated with increased transition readiness among youths with type 1 diabetes transitioning to adult care. Subjects. One hundred one adolescents and emerging adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning to adult care complete data in 63 study participants. Methods. In this cross-sectional study, we collected diabetes distress scale scores (via T1-DDS) and transition readiness scores (via Am I ON TRAC) at the last pediatric diabetes visit. We fitted regression models to estimate the relationship between T1-DDS scores and ON TRAC scores. Results. The total mean T1-DDS score was associated with ON TRAC knowledge score (β = −2.73, 95% CI −4.41,−1.06, p = 0.002 ), behavior score (β = −2.61, 95% CI −4.39,−0.84, p = 0.005 ), and transition readiness indicator (β = −0.18, −0.34,−0.01, p = 0.03 ). Multiple T1-DDS subscales were associated with ON TRAC knowledge score: powerlessness, management distress, negative social perceptions, eating distress, physician distress, and family/friend distress. Multiple T1-DDS subscales were also associated with ON TRAC behavior score: management distress, negative social perceptions, eating distress, and family/friend distress. Conclusions. Diabetes distress and transition readiness have an inversely proportional relationship in youths with type 1 diabetes transitioning to adult care. Targeting diabetes distress may also improve transition readiness (and vice versa) in 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".