Diabetes duration, perceived comfort with self‐management and glycaemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Evidence is lacking on whether diabetes duration is associated with type 1 diabetes (T1D) self-management during late adolescence before transfer from paediatric to adult care. We examined associations of diabetes duration with dimensions of perceived comfort with diabetes self-management (self-efficacy, transition readiness, diabetes distress) and glycaemic control in late adolescence. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, we conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data of adolescents (ages 16-17 years) with T1D followed at paediatric diabetes academic hospitals in Montreal and enrolled in the Group Education Trial to Improve Transition (GET-IT-T1D). Participants completed validated questionnaires on self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Self-Management Measure [SEDM], score 1 to 10), diabetes distress and transition readiness, as well as a haemoglobin (HbA1c) capillary blood test. Our primary outcome was self-efficacy. We examined associations of diabetes duration with self-efficacy, diabetes distress, transition readiness and HbA1c using linear and logistic regression models adjusted for sex, socioeconomic status, insulin pump use, glucose sensor use and psychiatric comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 203 adolescents with T1D, mean diabetes duration (SD) was 7.57 (4.44) years. Mean SEDM score was 6.83 (SD 1.62). Diabetes duration was not associated with self-efficacy, diabetes distress or transition readiness. Each additional year of diabetes duration was associated with 0.11% (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.16) higher HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Although diabetes duration is not associated with dimensions of perceived comfort with diabetes self-management, adolescents with longer diabetes duration are at risk for higher HbA1c and may need additional support to improve glycaemic control before transition 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".