Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: To assess Sweet Talk, a text-messaging support system designed to enhance self-efficacy, facilitate uptake of intensive insulin therapy and improve glycaemic control in paediatric patients with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria; Type 1 diabetes for > 1 year, on conventional insulin therapy, aged 8-18 years. Ninety-two patients were randomized to conventional insulin therapy (n = 28), conventional therapy and Sweet Talk (n = 33) or intensive insulin therapy and Sweet Talk (n = 31). Goal-setting at clinic visits was reinforced by daily text-messages from the Sweet Talk software system, containing personalized goal-specific prompts and messages tailored to patients' age, sex and insulin regimen. RESULTS: HbA(1c) did not change in patients on conventional therapy without or with Sweet Talk (10.3 +/- 1.7 vs. 10.1 +/- 1.7%), but improved in patients randomized to intensive therapy and Sweet Talk (9.2 +/- 2.2%, 95% CI -1.9, -0.5, P < 0.001). Sweet Talk was associated with improvement in diabetes self-efficacy (conventional therapy 56.0 +/- 13.7, conventional therapy plus Sweet Talk 62.1 +/- 6.6, 95% CI +2.6, +7.5, P = 0.003) and self-reported adherence (conventional therapy 70.4 +/- 20.0, conventional therapy plus Sweet Talk 77.2 +/- 16.1, 95% CI +0.4, +17.4, P = 0.042). When surveyed, 82% of patients felt that Sweet Talk had improved their diabetes self-management and 90% wanted to continue receiving messages. CONCLUSIONS: Sweet Talk was associated with improved self-efficacy and adherence; engaging a classically difficult to reach group of young people. While Sweet Talk alone did not improve glycaemic control, it may have had a role in supporting the introduction of intensive insulin therapy. Scheduled, tailored text messaging offers an innovative means of supporting adolescents with diabetes and could be adapted for other health-care settings and chronic diseases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franklin et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: