MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387939298 · doi:10.2196/preprints.53935

Teaching Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Self-Compassion (TADS) to Reduce Diabetes Distress: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4387939298 on OpenAlexaff
Saunya Dover, Alexandra Ahmet, Karen Bluth, Brian M. Feldman, Ellen B. Goldbloom, Gary S. Goldfield, Sarah Hamilton, Omar Imran, Adam Khalif, Karine Khatchadourian, Sarah Lawrence, Andrew Leonard, Kuan Liu, Yongdong Ouyang, Corien Peeters, Jai Shah, Noah M. P. Spector, Caroline Zuijdwijk, Marie‐Eve Robinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityDouglas CollegeChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialSelf-compassionIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyAnxietyDistressType 2 diabetesPsychologyGlycemicMedicineDepression (economics)Type 1 diabetesPsychiatryDiabetes mellitusMindfulnessInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Adolescents living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) often experience diabetes distress (DD), a construct distinct from depression or anxiety that refers to the negative emotions that arise from living with and managing diabetes. Self-compassion, which involves being open to one’s own suffering and treating oneself with the same care one would show to loved ones, is associated with better psychological and clinical outcomes among individuals with T1D. Self-compassion is a skill that can be taught and therefore represents an opportunity for intervention. OBJECTIVE The overall aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a web-based mindful self-compassion for teens (MSC-T) intervention on improving DD, anxiety, depression, diabetes-related disordered eating, and suicidal ideation experienced by youth with T1D (aged between 12 and 17 years) compared with a waitlist control group (standard of care). We will also explore (1) if the effect of the MSC-T intervention changes over time, (2) if the MSC-T intervention has a positive impact on measures of glycemic control, and (3) if the effect of the MSC-T intervention differs based on self-reported gender. METHODS We will conduct a single-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial of 140 adolescents with T1D followed for 12 months. Participants will be randomly allocated (using hidden allocation) in a 1:1 ratio to either the MSC-T intervention or the waitlist control group. Our primary outcome is DD, as measured by the Problem Areas in Diabetes-Teen (PAID-T) version at 3 months. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 3 and 12 months, include anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item [GAD-7] scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), diabetes-related disordered eating (Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised [DEPS-R] version), and suicidal ideation (using 1 question from the PHQ-9). RESULTS Study recruitment began in October 2022 and was completed in March 2023, with a total of 141 participants enrolling. Data collection will be ongoing until March 2024. The first results are expected in June 2024. CONCLUSIONS This study will be the first randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of the web-based MSC-T intervention on adolescents with T1D. Given that adolescence is a period where individuals are typically required to assume more responsibility for their diabetes care, providing adolescents with the tools they need to better manage the stress that often accompanies T1D management is paramount. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05463874; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05463874 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/53935

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1170.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Management and Research→French-language works237,207→