Caregiver burden among parents of children with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it