ArticleScientific reports2022
Type 1 diabetes and the challenges of emotional support in crisis situations: results from a feasibility study of a multidisciplinary teleintervention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04344210 (Impact of Tele-Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Glycemic Control and Attitude Toward the Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus - A Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Impact of Tele-Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Glycemic Control and Attitude Toward the Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus - A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to reduce diabetes-related distress among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Health Promotion in Glycemic Control and Emotional Well-Being of People with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Challenges of using telemedicine for patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association between type 1 diabetes and mental health disorders could be exacerbated in a stressful environment. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a teleguided intervention on emotional disorders in patients with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study was performed during the social distancing period in the COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil. Individuals with type 1 diabetes aged ≥ 18 years were selected to receive a teleguided multidisciplinary intervention or the usual care plus an educational website access. The proposed intervention aimed addressing aspects of mental health, diabetes care and lifestyle habits during the pandemic. The feasibility outcome included the assessment of recruitment capability and adherence to the proposed intervention. Moreover, we evaluated the presence of positive screening for emotional disorders (Self Report Questionnaire 20) after a 16-week intervention, patients' perceptions of pandemic-related changes, diabetes-related emotional distress, eating disorders, and sleep disorders. Data were analyzed with the intent-to-treat principle. Fifty-eight individuals (mean age, 43.8 ± 13.6 years) were included (intervention group, n = 29; control group, n = 29). At the end of the study, a total of 5 participants withdrew from the study in the intervention group compared to only 1 in the control group. Participants who dropout from the study had similar mean age, sex and income to those who remained in the study. The analysis of mental health disorders was not different between the groups at the follow up: a positive screening result was found in 48.3% and 34.5% of participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.29). The intervention group felt more supported in their diabetes care during the social distancing period (82.8% vs. 48.3% in the control group, P < 0.01). Our study identified a disproportionate higher number of withdrawals in the intervention group when compared to the control group. This difference may have compromised the power of the study for the proposed assessments and should be reevaluated in future studies.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04344210). Date of registration: 14/04/2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.