Search

Aim To assess 1) the prevalence of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) changing from low-risk into borderline-high-risk lipid levels or from borderline-high-risk into high-risk lipid levels ('lose track of lipids') and 2) the power of a risk score including the determinants HbA1c, body mass index (BMI), gender, age, diabetes duration and ethnicity in predicting which patients lose track of lipids. Methods 651 children and adolescents with T1D were included in this longitudinal retrospective cohort study. Lipid dynamics and the impact of the risk score on losing track of lipids were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate screening intervals. Results 31–43% percent of the patients had lost track of one or more lipids at the next lipid measurement. This happened more frequently in patients with a low-risk lipid level at start. Depending on the lipid parameter, 5% of patients with low-risk lipid levels lost track of lipids after 13–23 months. The risk score based on concomitant information on the determinants was moderately able to predict which patients would lose track of lipids on the short term. Conclusions A considerable number of children and adolescents with T1D loses track of lipids and does so within a 2-year screening interval. The predictive power of a risk score including age, BMI, gender, HbA1c, diabetes duration and ethnicity is only moderate. Future research should focus on another approach to the determinants used in this study or other determinants predictive of losing track of lipids on the short term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The reason for center differences in metabolic control of childhood diabetes is still unknown. We sought to determine to what extent the targets, expectations, and goals that diabetes care professionals have for their patients is a determinant of center differences in metabolic outcomes. Research Design and Methods: Children, under the age of 11 with type 1 diabetes and their parents treated at the study centers participated. Clinical, medical, and demographic data were obtained, along with blood sample for centralized assay. Parents and all members of the diabetes care team completed questionnaires on treatment targets for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and recommended frequency of blood glucose monitoring. Results: Totally 1113 (53% male) children (mean age 8.0 ± 2.1 years) from 18 centers in 17 countries, along with parents and 113 health‐care professionals, participated. There were substantial differences in mean HbA1c between centers ranging from 7.3 ± 0.8% (53 mmol/mol ± 8.7) to 8.9 ± 1.1% (74 mmol/mol ± 12.0). Centers with lower mean HbA1c had (1) parents who reported lower targets for their children, (2) health‐care professionals that reported lower targets and more frequent testing, and (3) teams with less disagreement about recommended targets. Multiple regression analysis indicated that teams reporting higher HbA1c targets and more target disagreement had parents reporting higher treatment targets. This seemed to partially account for center differences in Hb1Ac. Conclusions: The diabetes care teams’ cohesiveness and perspectives on treatment targets, expectations, and recommendations have an influence on parental targets, contributing to the differences in pediatric diabetes center outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few diabetes‐specific quality of life (QOL) tools are available for young children. Objectives: To design and evaluate, a new age‐specific QOL questionnaire and its associations with treatment regimens and metabolic control. Methods: Clinical, demographic data and centrally analyzed HbA1c were collected on 1133 children <11 years (girls 48%; mean ± SD age 8.0 ± 2.1 years; diabetes duration ≥1 year) from 18 centers (Europe, Japan, North America and Australia). Children completed the 10‐item Smiley Faces QOL questionnaire constructed for the study, and children ≥7 years also completed the KIDSCREEN‐10 Index. Results: In total, 1035 children completed the new Smiley Faces questionnaire which was well understood by 993 (70% ≥4 years and 96% ≥5 years, respectively). Internal consistency and reliability were good (Cronbach's α = .73). Inter‐item correlation ranged r = 0.047 to 0.451 indicating each item measures separate aspects of children's satisfaction construct. Convergent validity assessed by comparison to the HrQOL KIDSCREEN‐10 Index showed moderate correlation coefficient 0.501. Factor analysis revealed 3 factors explaining 51% of the variance. Children reported good QOL with most items positive, mean values between 1 and 2 on a 5‐point scale (lower scores indicating greater QOL). Diabetes satisfaction was unrelated to age, diabetes duration, HbA1c, or severe hypoglycemia. Girls were more satisfied than boys. Children on intensive regimens reported better QOL (P < .02). Main dissatisfaction related to insulin injections and blood sugar testing. Conclusions: The Smiley Faces questionnaire enables QOL assessment in young children and identification of areas of dissatisfaction and other clinically relevant items relating to diabetes management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), parents have complete responsibility for the diabetes-management. In toddlers and (pre)schoolers, the tasks needed to achieve optimal blood glucose control may interfere with normal developmental processes and could negatively affect the quality of parent-child interaction. Several observational instruments are available to measure the quality of the parent-child interaction. However, no observational instrument for diabetes-specific situations is available. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to develop a qualitative observation instrument, to be able to assess parent-child interaction during diabetes-specific situations. Methods First, in a pilot study (n = 15), the observation instrument was developed in four steps: (a) defining relevant diabetes-specific situations; (b) videotaping these situations; (c) describing all behaviors in a qualitative observation instrument; (d) evaluating usability and reliability. Next, we examined preliminary validity (total n = 77) by testing hypotheses about correlations between the observation instrument for diabetes-specific situations, a generic observation instrument and a behavioral questionnaire. Results The observation instrument to assess parent-child interaction during diabetes-specific situations, which consists of ten domains: "emotional involvement", "limit setting", "respect for autonomy", "quality of instruction", "negative behavior", "avoidance", "cooperative behavior", "child's response to injection", "emphasis on diabetes", and "mealtime structure", was developed for use during a mealtime situation (including glucose monitoring and insulin administration). Conclusions The present study showed encouraging indications for the usability and inter-rater reliability (weighted kappa was 0.73) of the qualitative observation instrument. Furthermore, promising indications for the preliminary validity of the observation instrument for diabetes-specific situations were found (r ranged between ∣.24∣ and ∣.45∣ for significant correlations and between ∣.10∣ and ∣.23∣ for non-significant trends). This observation instrument could be used in future research to (a) test whether parent-child interactions are associated with outcomes (like HbA1c levels and psychosocial functioning), and (b) evaluate interventions, aimed at optimizing the quality of parent-child interactions in families with a young child with T1DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]