Cited by 314Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes and associated disorders

Impact of ambulatory, family-focused teamwork intervention on glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes

Laffel, Lori M.B., Vangsness, Laura, Connell, Alexa, Goebel-Fabbri, Ann, Butler, Deborah, Anderson, Barbara J.·2003·The Journal of Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective To evaluate an ambulatory, family-focused intervention aimed at optimizing Study design Study design We randomly assigned 105 children and adolescents, 8 to 17 years of age, with T1DM for < or =6 years, to a family-focused teamwork (TW) intervention or to standard multidisciplinary diabetes care (SC). Patients in both study groups were seen at 3- to 4-month intervals and were followed prospectively for 1 year. Measures of family involvement in diabetes tasks, DFC, and quality of life were performed at baseline and after 1 year. Hemoglobin A1c was measured at each visit.Results Patients (n = 100) completed follow-up, (50 in TW and 50 in SC). At entry, A1c was 8.4% +/- 1.3% in TW and 8.3% +/- 1.0% in SC. After 1 year, A1c was 8.2% +/- 1.1% in TW compared with 8.7% +/- 1.5% in SC (P <.05). Both groups had similar frequencies of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) and insulin dosing. Families exposed to the TW intervention maintained or increased family involvement significantly more than families exposed to SC (P =.05). In multivariate analysis, the TW intervention and the daily frequency of BGM significantly predicted A1c (R (2) = 0.17, P =.05). Despite increased family involvement, the TW group reported no increase in DFC or decrease in quality of life.Conclusions The ambulatory TW intervention prevented the expected deterioration in glycemic control seen with SC in youths with T1DM of < or =6 years' duration. Successful family involvement may assist in the preservation of health and the prevention of long-term diabetes complications for youth with diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1067/mpd.2003.138

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laffel, L. M. B., Vangsness, L., Connell, A., Goebel-Fabbri, A., Butler, D., & Anderson, B. J.
Affiliations
Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
Venue
The Journal of Pediatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-04
Volume
142
Issue
4
Pages
409-416
ISSN
0022-3476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022193098
Cited by
314
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 23
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK-46887, R01DK046887)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, glycemic control, family involvement, family intervention, children and adolescents, HbA1c, blood glucose monitoring, insulin dose, diabetes self-management, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Ambulatory Care, Child, Conflict, Psychological, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Family Relations, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Patient Care Team, Patient Compliance, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Family Nursing

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