Evaluating a Digitally Delivered, Multi-Modal Intervention for Parents of Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and potential mental health impact of a digital peer support intervention involving videoconferencing and text-based support for parents of school-aged children living with T1D and analyzed posts exchanged by parents on a texting platform. Methods: Eighteen parents were recruited for Huddle4Parents, a 4-month digital intervention that involved four synchronous group-based Zoom sessions coupled with an asynchronous 24/7 peer support texting room. Primary outcomes were feasibility (i.e., ability to recruit n = 20 parents and retain at least 75%) and acceptability (i.e., satisfaction ratings of “good” to “very good”). Baseline and 4-month assessments also measured diabetes distress, quality of life, and perceived support. A content analysis of text exchanges was also performed. Results: All 15 parents who completed the intervention attended at least one Huddle and posted at least one message on the 24/7 peer support room. The retention rate was 83%, with 100% indicating that they would “definitely” or “probably yes” recommend both platforms to other parents. They also rated the topics, facilitator, and overall Huddles as “good” to “excellent.” No changes were observed for psychosocial endpoints. Of the 1084 texts posted, core support themes included the following: (1) dealing with technology and devices; (2) seeking and providing emotional support; (3) managing T1D in the school setting; and (4) exchanging tips and strategies. Conclusions: Huddle4Parents, a digital T1D caregiver intervention offering synchronous and asynchronous support, is feasible based on recruitment, participation, and attrition rates and acceptable as demonstrated by engagement and satisfaction ratings for the Huddles and 24/7 peer support room.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".