ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Safety of a co-designed cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for people with type 1 diabetes and eating disorders (STEADY): a feasibility randomised controlled trial.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A narrative systematic review of definitions and diagnostic criteria for disordered eating and eating disorders in type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2026Pooled it
- Tele-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetes-Related Distress in Individuals With Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A quantitative process evaluation of a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a co-designed cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for people with type 1 diabetes and disordered eating (steady trial): Auditing treatment integrity and delivery.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Trial
- Clinical and psychological phenotypes of type 1 diabetes and disordered eating derived from a case vignette series: T1DE phenotypes.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Learning From Those Who Have Lived: A Scoping Review Exploring the Involvement of Lived Experience Co-Design in Eating Disorder Research Methodologies.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised in Arab Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Safe management of people with Type 1 diabetes and EAting Disorders studY (STEADY) is a complex intervention for people with type 1 diabetes and mild-to-moderate disordered eating (T1DE) integrating cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with diabetes education. Aim was to test feasibility of STEADY in a randomised controlled trial. Methods: Feasibility parallel-group, randomised (blocks of four) controlled open-label trial (RCT) of STEADY against usual care (Control) at King's College London, UK. Participants were referred by clinicians or self-referred via social media advertisements. Forty adults with T1DE (Hba1c < 15%, body mass index 15-35 kg/m Findings: Of the 98 screened, 40 participants with T1DE were randomised (recruitment rate: 40.81%; 95% CI: 31.60%, 50.72%): 38 women, 1 man, 1 trans man (37 White, 1 White/Asian, 1 Black; 39 ± 11 years old, diabetes duration 22 ± 15 years, HbA1c 9.1 ± 2.6%). The drop-out rate was 3/20 = 15% (4.39%, 36.55%) in STEADY and 2/20 = 10% (1.57%, 31.32%) in Control. STEADY reported lower GAD-7 (5.75 ± 2.89 vs 10.18 ± 5.31, p = 0.0060) and higher DIDP (3.13 ± 0.63 vs 2.46 ± 0.87, p = 0.020) at follow-up compared with Control, indicating lower anxiety and higher diabetes-specific quality-of-life. Compared to baseline, STEADY improved in DEPS-R, EDE-QS, GAD-7, PHQ-9 and T1DDS. Interpretation: The STEADY-feasibility RCT demonstrated proof-of-concept for feasibility and mental health improvements in T1DE without deteriorating glycaemic control. A full scale RCT of STEADY will test effectiveness and implementation. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (CS-2017-17-023).
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.