Experience from a behavioural medicine intervention among poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients
Abstract
Aim To describe experience from a behavioural medicine intervention among poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients, in terms of feasibility, predictors and associations of improved glycaemic control.Methods Data were collected on 94 poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients who were randomised to a study evaluating the effects of a behavioural medicine intervention. Statistics covered descriptive and comparison analysis. Backward stepwise regression models were used for predictive and agreement analyses involving socio-demographic and medical factors, as well as measures of diabetes self-efficacy (DES), diabetes locus of control (DLOC), self-care activities (SDSCA), diabetes-related distress (Swe-PAID-20), fear of hypoglycaemia (HFS), well-being (WBQ), depression (HAD) and perceived stress (PSS).Results The participation rate in the study was 41% and attrition was 24%. Of those patients actually participating in the behavioural medicine intervention, 13% withdrew. From the regression models no predictors or associations of improvement in HbA(1c) were found.Conclusions The programme proved to be feasible in terms of design and methods. However, no clear pattern was found regarding predictors or associations of improved metabolic control as the response to the intervention. Further research in this area is called for.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our own previous treatment study was the first to demonstrate statistically assured effects on HbA1c.
“Our own previous treatment study in the field9 10 was the first to demonstrate statistically assured effects on HbA1c.”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for adult type 1 diabetes management: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (2018) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 9
- Authors
- Amsberg, S., Anderbro, T., Wredling, R., Lisspers, J., Lins, P.-E., Adamson, U., & Johansson, U.-B.
- Affiliations
- Sophiahemmet University College (SE)
- Danderyds sjukhus (SE)
- Mid Sweden University (SE)
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 76-83
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111965993
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- type 1 diabetes, poor glycaemic control, HbA1c, feasibility, predictors of treatment response, diabetes self-efficacy, locus of control, diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycemia, depression, perceived stress, well-being, self-care, attrition
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Behavioral Medicine, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review