Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Diabetes distress (DD) describes the unrelenting emotional and behavioral challenges of living with, and caring for someone living with, type 1 diabetes (T1D). We investigated associations between parent-reported and child-reported DD, T1D device use, and child glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in 157 families of school-age children. Research design and methods Parents completed the Parent Problem Areas in Diabetes-Child (PPAID-C) and children completed the Problem Areas in Diabetes-Child (PAID-C) to assess for DD levels. Parents also completed a demographic form where they reported current insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use (ie, user/non-user). We measured child HbA1c using a valid home kit and central laboratory. We used correlations and linear regression for our analyses. Results Children were 49% boys and 77.1% non-Hispanic white (child age (mean±SD)=10.2±1.5 years, T1D duration=3.8±2.4 years, HbA1c=7.96±1.62%). Most parents self-identified as mothers (89%) and as married (78%). Parents’ mean PPAID-C score was 51.83±16.79 (range: 16–96) and children’s mean PAID-C score was 31.59±12.39 (range: 11–66). Higher child HbA1c correlated with non-pump users (r=−0.16, p<0.05), higher PPAID-C scores (r=0.36, p<0.001) and higher PAID-C scores (r=0.24, p<0.001), but there was no association between child HbA1c and CGM use. A regression model predicting child HbA1c based on demographic variables, pump use, and parent-reported and child-reported DD suggested parents’ PPAID-C score was the strongest predictor of child HbA1c. Conclusions Our analyses suggest parent DD is a strong predictor of child HbA1c and is another modifiable treatment target for lowering child HbA1c.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patton et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: