Follow-up results on monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescent diabetes care: benefits do not sustain in routine practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We previously demonstrated that adding monitoring and discussion of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of adolescents with type 1 diabetes to routine periodic consultations positively impacts psychosocial well-being and satisfaction with care. The current study examines whether these positive effects are maintained 1 year after the intervention was terminated and patients received regular care again, with no formal HRQoL assessment. Patients and methods: Forty-one adolescents with type 1 diabetes were followed for 1 year after the initial HRQoL intervention, in which their HRQoL had been assessed and discussed as part of period consultations using the PedsQL. Changes in physical and psychosocial well-being [Child Health Questionnaire-Child Form 87 (CHQ-CF87), diabetes family conflict scale (DFCS), Center for Epidemiological Studies scale for Depression (CES-D)], satisfaction with care [Patients' Evaluation of the Quality of Diabetes (PEQ-D) care], and glycemic control (HbA(1c)) were determined 12 months after the HRQoL intervention had ended. Results: One year after the HRQoL intervention, mean scores on CHQ subscales: behavior (p = 0.001), mental health (p = 0.004), and self-esteem (p < 0.001) had decreased, whereas the family activities subscale remained stable. Adolescents were less satisfied with their care (p = 0.012), and HbA(1c) values had increased significantly 12 months postintervention (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The beneficial effects of an office-based HRQoL intervention in adolescents with diabetes largely disappear 1 year after withdrawing the HRQoL assessment procedure. This finding underscores the importance of integrating standardized evaluation and discussion of HRQoL in routine care for adolescents with diabetes.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".