Caregiver burden among parents of children with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Type one diabetes (T1D) in children places substantial responsibility on parents as caregivers. This study investigated caregiver burden in parents of children with T1D by exploring the financial, physical, social, spiritual, and emotional or psychological problems they experienced. Methods: We conducted a qualitative scoping review of the databases PsycINFO, PROSPERO, OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CDSR and Central), EBSCO CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and SCOPUS. Of 119 full text articles assessed for eligibility, 18 peer-reviewed qualitative studies were included. Studies were considered relevant if they focused on diabetes management and parental burden or the experience of caregiving for a child with T1D. Results: Using thematic analysis, six interrelated themes were identified: (a) experiencing chronic sorrow, (b) assuming responsibility for glucose highs and lows, (c) managing T1D and nighttime sleep disturbances, (d) making career sacrifices and choices to optimize T1D care, (e) navigating social experiences postdiagnosis, and (f) discovering new sources of support through online platforms. Conclusions: This synthesis highlights an all-encompassing experience involved in caretaking for a child with T1D. Caregiving duties lead to a constant sense of vigilance, especially due to fear of hypoglycemic incidents. Parents commonly experience challenges with balancing work demands with T1D management, which lead to career and financial sacrifices. Their burden of care is exacerbated by a lack of reliable respite care but helped somewhat by online peer support. Future research is needed on the care burden differences between mothers and fathers and how sociodemographic factors affect how caregiver burden is experienced.
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 | 0.028 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".