Acceptability of a Self-Led Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Teens with Type 1 Diabetes: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress among adolescents with type 1 diabetes has been associated with suboptimal diabetes outcomes, including lower quality of life, increased diabetes self-management challenges, and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a scalable self-led mindfulness-based intervention to reduce diabetes distress in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Adolescents (N=25) aged between 14 and 18 years diagnosed with type 1 diabetes completed a baseline assessment. Participants were randomized to receive a 10-week self-guided mindfulness-based stress reduction workbook program (e-book or paper option) immediately (n=15) or after a 10-week wait (n=10). During the intervention period, participants completed weekly assignments and feedback surveys. At 10 weeks and 20 weeks, follow-up assessments were completed. RESULTS: Findings indicated that participants did not find the original intervention feasible or acceptable. Adolescents reported barriers to completing the weekly material, such as that they forgot or that the material was not sufficiently related to their diabetes management. Adolescents also reported that a digital format rather than a workbook or e-book may be more acceptable. Results from weekly surveys provided the foundation for recommendations for future iterations of the mindfulness-based intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Participant feedback informed recommendations for self-led mindfulness programs for youth with type 1 diabetes. Adolescents indicated that a shorter, digital mindfulness-based intervention focused on diabetes-specific behaviors may be more helpful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05115175; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05115175.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".