ReviewJournal of pediatric psychology2025
Rigor and equity in intervention study design in pediatric psychology: a focus on comparator conditions from diabetes research.
Review in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo advance the science of health intervention research, pediatric psychologists must carefully design and conduct intervention research studies, including clinical trials. In contrast to guidance about scientific rigor in the selection of comparator groups in clinical trials, far less has been published on equity considerations in this process. The purpose of this paper is to review considerations for centering both equity and rigor in the study design decision, with a focus on the selection of comparator conditions for clinical trials of pediatric psychology interventions and propose potential solutions.
methodsWe reviewed existing guidance on (1) intervention study design with a focus on selection of comparator conditions from health psychology, medicine, and other similar fields, and (2) integration of both rigor and equity considerations into the design of intervention studies.
resultsWe present a range of options for study design choices regarding comparator conditions and discuss potential benefits, limitations, and practical considerations for each type of comparator condition. Examples from behavioral intervention trials in pediatric type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes were used to illustrate how each comparator condition functions in practice. We developed a practical guide for researchers to consider both rigor and equity in decisions related to intervention study design and comparator condition selection.
conclusionsThe process of selecting an appropriate comparator condition is one aspect of study design that can advance both equity and scientific rigor in pediatric psychology intervention research.
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.