ArticleDiabetology international2024
Naming hypoglycemia: a narrative tool for young people with type 1 diabetes and their families.
Article in Diabetology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hypoglycemia constitutes a communication barrier between youth with type 1 diabetes, their family members and health professionals. A narrative tool may contribute to a more effective communication. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with six open-ended questions using narrative techniques collect and analyze (thematic and comparative analysis) different ways of "naming" the lived experience of hypoglycemia. Results: 103 participants, 40 with type 1 Diabetes aged 10-18 years (17 female), 63 relatives (40 female). Group 1 (G1), 10-14 years old (n = 21), Group 2 (G2), 15-18 years old (n = 19), Group 3 (G3) relatives, 30-59 years old. G3 was divided, G3.1: female (n = 42) and G3.2: male (n = 21).G1 and G2 presents greater attention to symptoms. G1 refers a greater need for help, G2 emphasizes autonomy. G2 and G3 describes better the medical protocol. G1 and G2 refer more topics such as "discomfort", "frustration", "obligation", "difficulty in verbalizing", G3 refers to "gilt", "fear" and "responsibility". G3.1 refer more "symptoms", "responsibility", "fault", "incapacity". Conclusions: A narrative tool enhances the singularity of a common experience, proving itself useful to adolescents, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Practice implications: In addition to gathering information that is usually acquired empirically, a narrative tool exposes knowledge gaps and may allow implementing intervention strategies.
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.