Cited by 916Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Training in flexible, intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes: dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) randomised controlled trial

Open access
·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether a course teaching flexible intensive insulin treatment combining dietary freedom and insulin adjustment can improve both glycaemic control and quality of life in type 1 diabetes. Design: Randomised design with participants either attending training immediately (immediate DAFNE) or acting as waiting list controls and attending “delayed DAFNE” training 6 months later. Setting: Secondary care diabetes clinics in three English health districts. Participants: 169 adults with type 1 diabetes and moderate or poor glycaemic control. Main outcome measures: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ), severe hypoglycaemia, impact of diabetes on quality of life (ADDQoL). Results: At 6 months, HbA 1c was significantly better in immediate DAFNE patients (mean 8.4%) than in delayed DAFNE patients (9.4%) ( t =6.1, P<0.0001). The impact of diabetes on dietary freedom was significantly improved in immediate DAFNE patients compared with delayed DAFNE patients ( t =−5.4, P<0.0001), as was the impact of diabetes on overall quality of life ( t =2.9, P<0.01). General wellbeing and treatment satisfaction were also significantly improved, but severe hypoglycaemia, weight, and lipids remained unchanged. Improvements in “present quality of life” did not reach significance at 6 months but were significant by 1 year. Conclusion: Skills training promoting dietary freedom improved quality of life and glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes without worsening severe hypoglycaemia or cardiovascular risk. This approach has the potential to enable more people to adopt intensive insulin treatment and is worthy of further investigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.746

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is convincing evidence that formal training programs that teach patients to replace insulin "physiologically" by giving background and mealtime/correction doses of insulin can reduce the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

    “There is convincing evidence that formal training programs that teach patients to replace insulin “physiologically” by giving background and mealtime/correction doses of insulin can reduce the risk of severe hypoglycemia.”

    From Hypoglycemia and Diabetes: A Report of a Workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society (2013) · cites this paper as [103]

    The skills course section describes training patients to adjust insulin to their meals. But the paper reports that severe hypoglycaemia remained unchanged; the Discussion says there was no significant increase, not a reduction in risk. The claimed risk reduction is therefore contrary to the reported finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These programs have been successfully delivered in other settings with comparable reductions in hypoglycemic risk.

    “These programs have been successfully delivered in other settings (103,104) with comparable reductions in hypoglycemic risk (105).”
  • Inhaled insulin has a faster peak and shorter duration and is available as prandial insulin, but it requires repeated inhaled correction doses one to two hours after meals.

    “Inhaled insulin with a faster peak of action and shorter duration is also available as prandial insulin, with the requirement of using repeated inhaled correctional insulin doses after 1 to 2 hours postmeal.1158,1159”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1158]

    The Skills course section describes matching insulin doses to meals, and Secondary outcomes reports the number of injections per day; neither addresses inhaled insulin. Searches for inhaled insulin and postmeal correction doses found no passage about its action profile, availability, or dosing schedule. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These programs have been successfully delivered in other settings with comparable reductions in hypoglycemic risk.

    “These programs have been successfully delivered in other settings (103,104) with comparable reductions in hypoglycemic risk (105).”
  • Studies examining the ideal amount of carbohydrate intake for people with diabetes are inconclusive.

    “Studies examining the ideal amount of carbohydrate intake for people with diabetes are inconclusive, although monitoring carbohydrate intake and considering the blood glucose response to dietary carbohydrate are key for improving postprandial glucose management (156,157).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. Audit Commission. Testing times: a review of diabetes services in England and Wales. London: Audit Commission, 2000.
  2. [6]6. Bradley C, Pierce MB, Hendrieckx C, Riazi A, Barendse S. Diabetes melli- tus. In: Johnston M, Johnston DW, eds. Health psychology. Vol 8 in Bellack AS Hersen M, eds. Comprehensive clinical psychology. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1998:277-304.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-10-05
Volume
325
Issue
7367
Pages
746
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W4243162779
Cited by
916
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 54
FWCI
13.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Diabetes UK
  • King's College London
  • Novo Nordisk
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, DAΦNE, insulin dose adjustment, glycemic control, HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia, quality of life, diabetes self-management education, treatment satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diet, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction

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