ArticleThe science of diabetes self-management and care2025
Clinician, Youth, and Parent Perspectives on Diabetes Technology Education.
Article in The science of diabetes self-management and care, 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.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to explore the educational experiences of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), their parents, and clinicians when initiating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps.
methodsTwenty parent-child dyads with T1D ≥6 months and ≥1 month CGM and insulin pump use were eligible to participate in semistructured dyadic interviews. Purposive sampling was used to recruit youth with a range of A1C levels and to overrepresent dyads from minoritized backgrounds. Eight diabetes clinicians with ≥1 year of experience participated in individual interviews using a parallel interview guide. A subset of interviews was double-coded, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes.
resultsPoor internet connections, distractions in the home, and small screens made in-person education the preferred modality for dyads and clinicians due to the physical skills required when learning to use these devices. Structured education addressing essential topics was constrained by allotted appointment times and thus (1) often overlooked cognitive and emotional burdens of diabetes technology education and (2) insufficiently accounted for individual learning pace and capacity. Real-world experiential learning supported by the clinical team through telemedicine, phone calls, and electronic medical record messaging was often used to fill the gaps of structured education.
conclusionsBoth clinicians and parent-child dyads initiating CGM and automated insulin delivery expressed a preference for in-person education. Although experiential learning can supplement important concepts not adequately addressed during structured education, relying solely on this approach may unintentionally omit crucial concepts. Educational strategies are needed to overcome information overload and support families in diabetes self-management.
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.