Search

AimTo assess the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and sensor glucose metrics in young children with type 1 diabetes, using masked, continuous glucose monitoring data from children aged 2 to < 8 years.Research design and methodsThe analysis included 143 children across 14 sites in the USA, enrolled in a separate clinical trial. Eligibility criteria were: age 2 to 10.0 mmol/l) and a median of ~1 h/day in hypoglycaemia (

OBJECTIVE - To establish minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores representing the smallest detectable change in quality of life (QOL), using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) Generic Core and Diabetes Module among youth with ia

Objective: To examine the relationship of paternal involvement in diabetes care with adherence and glycemic control.Methods: One hundred and thirty-six mothers and fathers of preadolescents (aged 9-12 years) with type 1 diabetes reported on paternal involvement. Adherence was measured by interview and blood glucose meter downloads. Mothers' and fathers' ratings of paternal involvement in diabetes care were compared. We evaluated three structural equation models linking paternal involvement with adherence and glycemic control.Results: Mothers and fathers reported similar amounts of paternal involvement, yet mothers rated paternal involvement as more helpful. The data supported a model indicating links between more paternal involvement and higher HbA1c and between lower adherence and higher HbA1c. Mediation and moderation models were not supported.Discussion: Although paternal involvement was not directly associated with treatment adherence, it was associated with poorer glycemic control. Some fathers may increase their involvement in response to suboptimal glycemic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine family and individual psychosocial, medical, and demographic factors associated with improved diabetes-related quality of life (QOL) after transitioning to the insulin pump among youth with type 1 diabetes.Method: Fifty-three parent-child dyads completed questionnaires on four occasions prior to and following this medical regimen change, assessing QOL, family environment, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and medical and demographic information. Trajectories of change in QOL were analyzed using multilevel modeling.Result: Psychosocial, medical, and demographic characteristics were associated with QOL prior to pump-start. Elements of children's QOL significantly improved after the transition, and improvement was predicted by psychosocial, medical, and demographic characteristics.Conclusion: Results indicate that individual and contextual factors may play a role in QOL as children transition to the insulin pump. Findings may guide efforts to support families through this challenging time and potentially inform candidacy for transition to the pump. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-term follow-up for individuals with hypospadias remains a critical area of need, yet evidence-based guidelines for such follow-up are lacking, and the role of involvement of relevant experts is not yet established. Using our hypospadias-specific health-related quality of life conceptual framework and a subsequent qualitative study of prepubertal males and parents of males with hypospadias, we identified potential priorities for long-term follow-up of youth with hypospadias. Using thematic codes from our patient and parent interviews, we searched PubMed for relevant articles and identified the specialties represented by all the authors of these articles. Our search strategy revealed consistent expertise across HRQOL themes and subthemes, including pediatric and adult urology, health psychology, psychiatry, endocrinology, genetics, and social work. Communication experts, as well as patients and families, were also represented in our literature search. Using these findings, we compiled a comprehensive list of potential stakeholders to inform the development of holistic care guidelines for individuals with hypospadias. By engaging these stakeholders, we aim to develop consensus-based, long-term follow-up guidelines and tools to address the evolving physical and psychosocial needs of people with hypospadias over a lifetime. The use of qualitatively derived thematic codes to search for relevant literature is an accessible approach to identifying relevant stakeholders. These findings underscore the importance of involving diverse, multidisciplinary expertise to ensure comprehensive, patient-centered care in complex genitourinary conditions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (© 2024 Bhatia, Ebert, Cannon, Farhat, Brown, Mahoney, Hilliard and Penniston.)

Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management is challenging for young adults, who are expected to transfer from the pediatric to adult T1D healthcare system while also managing typical developmental demands (e.g., social, financial, work/school, residential). Many young adults have extended gaps in care before following up in adult care, increasing risk for poor health outcomes. There are few evidence-based programs to support young adults with T1D to promote a timelier transition during this period. This paper reports on the design of DiaBetter Together, a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a 12-month Peer Mentor-delivered intervention compared to usual care among young adults with T1D during the transfer from pediatric to adult care., Methods: One-hundred young adults (age 17-25) with T1D and 29 Peer Mentors enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. Peer Mentors are experienced, older young adults with T1D, trained by the study team to share transition experiences and strategies to successfully navigate the adult healthcare system, help young adults prepare for the first adult care visit, and use strengths-based support strategies to teach and model skills for managing T1D-related challenges., Results: The primary outcome of the trial is HbA1c, and secondary outcomes include time to adult care, engagement in diabetes self-management behaviors, and psychosocial well-being., Conclusion: The goal of this research is to evaluate a developmentally appropriate, supportive intervention that can improve T1D self-management and successful transfer of care during the difficult young adult years and promote optimal T1D health outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Hypospadias is a common disease that affects approximately 1 in every 200 live male births in the United States, and long-term studies of individuals who have undergone repair demonstrate complication rates of 15%-70%. The Hypospadias-Specific Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Conceptual Framework for youth and adults suggests that additional morbidity may be incurred from poor psychological, social, and sexual health. The current study sought to clarify hypospadias-specific HRQOL and care priorities in a pre-pubertal population., Material and Methods: This IRB-approved, semi-structured interview study used rigorous qualitative research methods. Eligible patients were English-speaking 8-12-year-old males with hypospadias and their parents. Families completed a demographic questionnaire and separate youth and parent 30-min telephone interviews. We used hybrid thematic analysis to develop an operational codebook, analyze participant responses, and generate conceptual themes. Mixed methods analysis was used to explore patterns of experiences across groups defined by socioeconomic level., Results: We interviewed 10 parents and 8 children (Median age 9 years, Range 8-11). We generated three overarching themes: Penile Factors, Psychosocial Concerns, and Expectations of Surgery and the Healthcare Team. These highest-order themes were generated for youth, parent-proxy, and parent self-reported experiences, and there were different sub-themes for each participant type (Figure). Youth were focused on avoidance of disclosure and the psychological impact of self-comparisons and embarrassment, while the parental perspective centered on worries about future fertility, complications, psychological health, and normality. Some youth and parents from disadvantaged neighborhoods or those with public insurance indicated a need for more education on normal penile functions and provision of strategies for long-term self-monitoring and facilitation of long-term follow-up on mixed methods analysis., Conclusion: These findings add insight into the multifaceted experiences of pre-pubertal youth and families dealing with hypospadias, and underscore the consistent, wide-ranging interplay between medical, psychological, and social concerns. Patterns in themes across socioeconomic status and insurance coverage suggest that access to information and quality care may vary significantly and could contribute to health disparities. Urologists should employ an individualized approach to counseling and care delivery. Future studies will seek to characterize care priorities in pubertal and post-pubertal age groups to design developmentally adjusted support tools for youth and adults with hypospadias and their families., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest - Dr. Bhatia is the Primary Investigator for an award from the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (2K12DK100022-06). - Dr. Farhat serves as a consultant for Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corporation; Xpan, Inc.; and Revolve Surgical, Inc. He is also the primary investigator for a Wisconsin Partnership Program Grant. - Dr. Brown serves as a consultant for Grand Rounds, Inc, and serves as the primary investigator for awards from the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5R01DK128349-03) and the Agency for Health Research and Quality (5U18HS028738-02). - Dr. Hilliard is the Primary Investigator for an award from the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K26DK138332). - The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This paper explores parent coaching experiences supporting parents of young children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in a clinical trial., Methods: In a trial for 157 parents, those in the intervention arm ( n = 116) were paired with a parent coach (n = 37; Mage = 37.9 years, SD = 3.9; 94.6% mothers, 81.1% White non-Hispanic). Parent coaches provided diabetes-specific social support. Parent coaches completed monthly surveys and satisfaction/feasibility surveys, with a subset (n = 7) undergoing qualitative interviews at the end of this study., Results: There were 2262 contacts between participants and their parent coaches, averaging 14.4 (SD = 9.3) per participant. Parent coaches reported that the most commonly used methods were text messages (67.9%) and emails (18.7%), with 33.6% having in-person visits. Coaches reported high satisfaction and belief in their usefulness to participants during the first 9 months after T1D diagnosis. Themes discussed by parent coaches about their experience in mentoring included relationship building, expertise sharing, personal growth, gratification, and intervention optimization suggestions., Conclusions: Parent coaching post T1D diagnosis involves regular, multi-method contacts. It is highly acceptable and valuable for parent coaches to mentor other parents of young children newly diagnosed with T1D.

Importance: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires demanding self-management health behaviors, and adolescents with T1D are at risk for poor psychosocial and medical outcomes. Developing resilience skills may help adolescents with T1D and elevated distress navigate common stressors and achieve positive outcomes., Objective: To test the efficacy of the Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM) intervention on levels of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), diabetes distress, self-management behaviors, resilience, and quality of life among adolescents., Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, parallel, 1:1 randomized clinical trial that followed up 172 participants for 12 months was conducted from January 1, 2020, to November 30, 2022, at each of 2 children's hospitals, in Seattle, Washington, and Houston, Texas. Participants were ages 13 to 18 years with T1D for at least 12 months and elevated diabetes distress., Intervention: PRISM, a manualized, skills-based, individual intervention program that teaches stress management, goal setting, reframing, and meaning-making, facilitated by a coach and accompanied by a digital app, was delivered in three 30- to 60-minute sessions approximately 2 weeks apart., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes, diabetes distress and HbA1c levels, and 3 secondary outcomes, resilience, quality of life, and engagement in self-management behaviors, were assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 months after baseline. Linear mixed-effects regression models were used to evaluate associations between PRISM or usual care (UC) and these outcomes at both time points for the intention-to-treat population., Results: Among 172 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.7 [1.6] years), 96 were female (56%), and their baseline mean (SD) HbA1c level was 8.7% (2.0%). No differences were evident between PRISM and UC recipients in HbA1c levels (β, -0.21 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.22]; P = .33) or diabetes distress (β, -2.71 [95% CI, -6.31 to 0.90]; P = .14) or any participant-reported outcome (eg, β, 2.25 [95% CI, -0.30 to 4.80]; P = .08 for self-management behaviors) at 6 months. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference between arms in HbA1c levels (β, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.72 to 0.19]; P = .25); however, PRISM recipients reported significantly greater amelioration of diabetes distress (β, -4.59 [95% CI, -8.25 to -0.94]; P = .01) and improvement in self-management behaviors (β, 3.4 [95% CI, 0.9 to 5.9]; P = .01) compared with UC recipients., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this randomized clinical trial of psychosocial and behavioral improvements associated with PRISM at 12 months illustrate the value of a strengths-based intervention. Integrating resilience skills-building with traditional diabetes care may be a promising approach for improving outcomes among adolescents with T1D and elevated diabetes distress., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03847194.

Young adults experience multiple developmental transitions across social, educational, vocational, residential, and financial life domains. These transitions are potential competing priorities to managing a chronic condition such as type 1 diabetes and can contribute to poor psychosocial and medical outcomes. In this narrative review, we describe population outcomes of young adult populations and the unique considerations associated with managing type 1 diabetes in young adulthood. We provide an overview of the current evidence-based strategies to improve care for young adults with type 1 diabetes and recommendations for future directions in the field., Competing Interests: Disclosure M.E. Hilliard receives support from 1R01DK119246. S.Carreon. receives support from 3R01DK119246-03S1. S. Agarwal is a health disparities advisor to Medtronic, Inc. and Beta Bionics, and receives CGM devices for research from Dexcom Inc. S. Agarwal receives support from the NIDDK (1R01DK111022) and JDRF (4-SRA-2022-1187-M-B and 4-SRA-2021-1071-M-B). No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Managing type 1 diabetes in young children can cause significant stress for parents. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may reduce parental burden. The Strategies to Enhance CGM Use in Early Childhood (SENCE) trial randomized parents of children (ages 2 to <8 years) with type 1 diabetes to CGM with family behavioural intervention (CGM + FBI), CGM alone (Standard-CGM) or blood glucose monitoring for 26 weeks before receiving CGM + FBI (BGM-Crossover). This report assesses changes in psychosocial outcomes for all groups over 52 weeks., Methods: CGM + FBI (n = 45), Standard-CGM (n = 42) and BGM-Crossover (n = 44) participants completed psychosocial assessments at baseline, 26 weeks and 52 weeks. Repeated measures linear regression models evaluated change within and between treatment groups., Results: The BGM-Crossover group reported improved diabetes burden (Δ -6.9, 95% CI [-11.3, -2.6], p = 0.003), fear of hypoglycaemia (Δ -6.4, CI [-10.1, -2.6], p = 0.002) and technology satisfaction (Δ 7.3, CI [2.4, 12.2], p = 0.005) from 26 to 52 weeks, similar to published findings in the CGM + FBI group over the first 26 weeks. The Standard-CGM group reported increased technology satisfaction (Δ 7.3, CI [0.6, 14.0], p = 0.027) from baseline to 52 weeks. The CGM + FBI group reported less diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycaemia from baseline to 52 weeks, but changes were not statistically significant. Scores from 26 to 52 weeks did not deteriorate., Conclusions: Parents demonstrated psychosocial benefits following FBI that appeared to maintain without additional intervention. CGM-focused education with behavioural support likely helps parents of young children with type 1 diabetes reduce burden and worry in the short- and long-term., (© 2023 Diabetes UK.)

Objective: Parents of young children with new-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) often experience significant distress and struggle with T1D management during a challenging developmental stage. The First STEPS (Study of Type 1 in Early childhood and Parenting Support) trial evaluated a stepped-care behavioral intervention comprising increasingly intensive intervention steps (peer parent coach, cognitive-behavioral counseling, consultations with diabetes educator and psychologist) based on need. The intervention improved parental depressive symptoms compared to usual care. Subsequently, we examined parent satisfaction with the intervention to guide potential implementation and refinement for future trials., Methods: Participants were 157 parents of young children newly diagnosed with T1D. At 9 months post randomization, n = 153 completed satisfaction questionnaires and n = 17 completed qualitative interviews. Satisfaction ratings about trial procedures and each intervention step were summarized. We used thematic analysis with the interview transcripts to generate themes related to participants' experiences in the trial overall and intervention specifically. We explored differences in themes between participants who did versus did not respond to the intervention and among those who experienced different intervention steps., Results: Most participants in both arms rated study participation and methods positively (>95%), and those completing interviews described high satisfaction with study procedures overall, retention incentives, and contact with study staff. Intervention participants' satisfaction ratings were high across steps. Two qualitative themes reflected satisfaction with the intervention enhancing self-efficacy and social support., Conclusions: High satisfaction suggests implementing a stepped-care behavioral intervention as part of routine clinical care following T1D diagnosis would be well received., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Achieving optimal glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is challenging. This study examined the durability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) coupled with a family behavioral intervention (FBI) to improve glycemia., Study Design: This one-year study included an initial 26-week randomized controlled trial of CGM with FBI ( CGM+FBI ) and CGM alone ( Standard-CGM ) compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM), followed by a 26-week extension phase wherein the BGM Group received the CGM+FBI ( BGM-Crossover ) and both original CGM groups continued this technology., Results: Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) did not improve with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 37%, 52 weeks 41%; Standard-CGM: baseline 41%, 52 weeks 44%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 38%, 52 weeks 40%). All three groups sustained decreases in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 3.4%, 52 weeks 2.0%; Standard-CGM: baseline 4.1%, 52 weeks 2.1%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 4.5%, 52 weeks 1.7%, P -values <.001). Hemoglobin A1c was unchanged with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 8.3%, 52 weeks 8.2%; Standard-CGM: baseline 8.2%, 52 weeks 8.0%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 8.1%, 52 weeks 8.3%). Sensor use remained high (52-week study visit: CGM+FBI 91%, Standard-CGM 92%, BGM-Crossover 88%)., Conclusion: Over 12 months young children with T1D using newer CGM technology sustained reductions in hypoglycemia and, in contrast to prior studies, persistently wore CGM. However, pervasive hyperglycemia remained unmitigated. This indicates an urgent need for further advances in diabetes technology, behavioral support, and diabetes management educational approaches to optimize glycemia in young children.

Objective: A central part of family adjustment to a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is integrating T1D management into the child's school/daycare. This may be particularly challenging for young children who rely on adults for their diabetes management. This study aimed to describe parent experiences with school/daycare during the first 1.5 years following a young child's T1D diagnosis., Methods: As part of a randomized controlled trial of a behavioral intervention, 157 parents of young children with new-onset (<2 months) T1D reported on their child's school/daycare experience at baseline and at 9- and 15-month post-randomization. We used a mixed-methods design to describe and contextualize parents' experiences with school/daycare. Qualitative data were collected via open-ended responses, and quantitative data were collected from a demographic/medical from., Results: While most children were enrolled in school/daycare at all time points, over 50% of parents endorsed that T1D affected their child's enrollment, rejection, or removal from school/daycare at 9 or 15 months. We generated five themes related to parents' school/daycare experiences: Child factors, Parent factors, School/Daycare factors, Cooperation between Parents and Staff, and Socio-historical factors. Parents of younger children and those with lower subjective socioeconomic status were significantly more likely to endorse challenges with school/daycare enrollment., Conclusions: School/daycare settings present challenges for parents of young children with T1D. Changes may need to occur across contexts to support early childhood education, including advocacy resources for parents to navigate school policies, increased training for school staff, and healthcare team outreach initiatives to parents and schools., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Managing young children's mealtime concerns can be challenging after type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis because of developmental factors and diabetes management demands. To identify potential intervention targets, we evaluated medical, psychosocial, and demographic factors in relation to parents' engagement in problem mealtime behaviors (e.g., pressure to eat, restriction)., Method: Parents (N = 157) of young children (age 1-6 years) reported on psychosocial variables (parent fear of hypoglycemia, family functioning, parent problem solving, and parents' problem mealtime behavior frequency and perceptions of being problematic) within 2 months after T1D diagnosis. Hierarchical regression analyses examined associations among psychosocial variables, demographics (child sex, parent race/ethnicity), child continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use, and parents' problem mealtime behaviors., Results: Parents of children using CGMs reported parents' mealtime behaviors as more problematic than nonusers, but there were no differences for other medical or demographic variables. Models predicting parents' problem mealtime behavior frequency and problem perceptions that included psychosocial variables, demographic variables, and CGM use led to significant R 2 of 0.14 and 0.16, respectively. CGM use and parent problem solving were significantly associated with parent mealtime behaviors being perceived as more problematic., Conclusion: Shortly after T1D diagnosis in young children, medical and parent psychosocial factors related to how frequently parents engaged in problem mealtime behaviors and the degree to which parents perceived them as problematic. Other factors may further explain the complexities of mealtime management. Considering parents' problem-solving skills and child treatment regimens may help guide interventions targeting mealtime challenges during the new diagnosis period., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are at high risk for elevated diabetes distress, which greatly impacts diabetes management, glycemic outcomes and overall quality of life. Developing protective skills and "resilience resources" to navigate adversity and manage diabetes distress has high potential to help adolescents with T1D achieve optimal behavioral, psychological, and health outcomes. The "Promoting Resilience in Stress Management" (PRISM) program is a manualized, brief, skills-based intervention delivered over 6 months via two 45-60 min one-on-one sessions and a family meeting with a PRISM coach, and supplemented by booster calls and a digital app. This trial (PRISM versus usual care)is designed to:: (1) assess PRISM's impact on glycemic outcomes and diabetes distress among adolescents with T1D, and (2) explor PRISM's impact on resilience, self-reported adherence, and quality of life., Methods: We describe the protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed for adolescents ages 13-18 with elevated diabetes distress. The primary trial outcomes are glycemic outcomes and diabetes distress 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include resilience, self-reported adherence, and QOL 6 months post-randomization. Our hypothesis is that youth in the PRISM group will demonstrate better glycemic outcomes and improved diabetes distress, adherence, resilience, and QOL compared to usual care., Conclusions: This study will provide methodologically rigorous data and evidence regarding a novel intervention to promote resilience among adolescents with T1D and elevated diabetes distress. This research has the potential to offer a practical, skills-based curriculum designed to improve outcomes for this high-risk group., Trial Registration: Prospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03847194)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Daniel DeSalvo has served as independent consultant for Dexcom and his institution has received research support from Insulet outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Although mood and anxiety symptoms are common in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), little research has described their worries across developmental stages or the strategies they use to cope with these worries. This secondary data analysis aimed to describe and characterize common T1D-related worries and coping strategies from middle childhood through young adulthood., Methods: Twenty-three youth (9 children, 7 adolescents, and 7 young adults) completed semistructured qualitative interviews about health-related quality of life. We coded interview transcripts using thematic analysis to generate common themes of diabetes-related worries and coping strategies., Results: Participants' worries fell into four major themes: Managing Blood Glucose, Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Management, Interpersonal Relationships, and Lifestyle Impact, and eight youth denied having diabetes-related worries. Coping strategies fell into the three major themes: Attempts to Change Source of Worry, Attempts to Change Reactions to Worry, and Attempts to Orient Away from the Worry., Conclusions: Youths' worries about various aspects of living with and feeling able to self-manage diabetes are important to consider across pediatric development as they can impact youths' participation in daily activities and future plans. By adolescence, youth report longer-term worries about the health and lifestyle implications of diabetes. Youths' reported coping strategies are generally consistent with existing coping frameworks, though our data suggest some possible refinements. Social support emerged as an important coping strategy for all age groups. Thus, interventions supporting youth in building and strengthening their social networks may be particularly beneficial in helping youth cope with their diabetes-related worries across development., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Despite the emotional challenges of parental adjustment to a child's type 1 diabetes diagnosis and the unique complexities of early childhood, there are few programs designed to meet the needs of parents of young children at new onset. This study evaluated First STEPS (Study of Type 1 in Early childhood and Parenting Support), a stepped-care behavioral intervention designed to support parents' psychosocial functioning and promote children's glycemic outcomes., Research Design and Methods: Using a two-site randomized clinical trial design, parents (n = 157) of children aged 1-6 years completed baseline data within 2 months of diabetes diagnosis and were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 115) or usual care (n = 42) for 9 months. Intervention steps included: 1) peer parent coaching, with step-ups to 2) structured behavioral counseling and 3) professional consultations with a diabetes educator and psychologist, based on parent mood and child HbA1c. Participants completed follow-ups at 9 and 15 months postrandomization. Primary outcomes were parent depressive symptoms and child HbA1c., Results: Depressive symptoms improved in both groups, and intervention parents had significantly lower depressive symptoms at the 9- and 15-month follow-ups compared with usual care. HbA1c decreased in both groups, but there were no between-group differences at 9 or 15 months., Conclusions: First STEPS improved parents' mood following young children's type 1 diabetes diagnosis. Results indicate likely benefits of parent coach support, supplemented by intervention intensifications, including behavioral intervention and diabetes education. This model has high potential for patient engagement. The absence of a medical intervention component may explain null findings for HbA1c; incorporating targeted behavioral support for intensive diabetes treatment may maximize intervention impact., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)