Eating problems in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK NIHR CLAHRC for South Yorkshire and Sheffield, UK Academic Unit of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.24). 08/2012; 30(2). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03771.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Aims:  We report a systematic review to determine (1) prevalence of eating problems compared with peers and (2) the association between eating problems and glycaemic control in young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Method:  We conducted a systematic literature search via electronic databases and meta-analysis. Cohen's d (the mean difference score between Type 1 diabetes and comparison groups) was calculated for 13 studies that met inclusion criteria. Results:  Eating problems [both disordered eating behaviour (39.3 and 32.5%; d = 0.52, 95% CI 0.10-0.94) and eating disorders (7.0 and 2.8%; d = 0.46, 95% CI 0.10-0.81)] were more common in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes compared with peers and both were associated with poorer glycaemic control (d = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.64). In restricted analyses involving measures adapted for diabetes, associations between eating problems and poorer glycaemic control remained (d = 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.76). Disordered eating behaviour (51.8 and 48.1%; d = 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.21) and eating disorders (6.4 and 3.0%; d = 0.43, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.91) were more common in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes compared with peers, but differences were non-significant. Conclusions:  Eating problems are common among this age group. Future work in populations with Type 1 diabetes should develop sensitive measures of eating problems and interventions, and establish predictors of eating problems. Screening in clinics is recommended. © 2012 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2012 Diabetes UK.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PurposeTheory-based behaviour change interventions have been recommended to improve outcomes for young people with type 1 diabetes. However, theory has exclusively been considered in a simplistic all-or-none fashion. We therefore (1) examined the nature and extent of explicit theory use in published interventions involving young people with type 1 diabetes and (2) the relationship between how theory is used and intervention outcomes.Methods We conducted systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1999 and 2012. We used a detailed structured framework to code how theory was used and meta-analytic techniques to examine the relationships between theory use and intervention efficacy.ResultsWe identified 34 articles comprising 27 RCTs. Thirty per cent (k = 8) did not use theory in any of the ways assessed. Where present, the most common use of theory was providing evidence that a targeted theoretical construct predicted behaviour (k = 15; 56%). Trials that used theory to some extent had marginally larger pooled effect sizes for both medical and psychological outcomes than those that did not. However, in meta-regression models, use of theory did not significantly predict intervention outcomes.Conclusions Theory is under-utilized in intervention development for young people with type 1 diabetes. When employed, theory appears to be advantageous, but not necessarily predictive of intervention success. We argue that greater emphasis is needed on choosing appropriate theory, which should then become central to the process of intervention development.Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes that explicitly cite a theoretical basis may be more effective than those that do not. Recommendations have been made for theory to be central to the intervention development process in this area. What does this study add? Theory use in recent interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes is extremely limited.Larger positive medical and psychological outcomes are observed in interventions making some use of theory.Greater use of theory does not necessarily guarantee intervention success.
    British Journal of Health Psychology 12/2014; DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12131 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite improvements in pharmacological treatments and methods of care and care delivery, the burden of living with diabetes remains an ongoing challenge, as many people with diabetes are at increased risk of mental health disorders, psychological disturbances and functional problems associated with living with diabetes. Person-centred collaborative care that also meets the psychological needs of the individual is not available to many people with diabetes. The present article examines the role of psychological factors in the onset of diabetes and in relation to living with diabetes. It is argued that the pursuit of psychological well-being is worthy of individual attention in the care of people with diabetes and should not be contingent upon attainment of somatic indices of health. The barriers to attaining this goal are examined, including the costs of treating (or not treating) psychological problems in people with diabetes. Recommendations on how to improve diabetes care are offered, including psychological interventions that are both evidence-based and cost-effective.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Diabetic Medicine 10/2014; DOI:10.1111/dme.12620 · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Pediatric Diabetes 09/2014; 15 Suppl 20:77-85. DOI:10.1111/pedi.12187 · 2.13 Impact Factor