Jornal de pediatria · 2026
Evaluation of the quality of life of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus before and after an intervention with a remote multiprofessional educational program.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fritz Camilla Kapp, de Leão Andreia Araújo Porchat, Sbalqueiro Fernanda Volpato França, Taconeli Cesar Augusto, Almeida Claudia Choma Bettega, Dias Marcia Regina Messaggi Gomes, França Suzana Nesi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) and glycemic control of children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) before and after an intervention with a multidisciplinary educational program.
METHOD: In this prospective interventional study, 47 participants were divided into an intervention group (IG), which underwent a six-month in-person and online multiprofessional education program, and a control group (CG), which received standard in-person follow-up. After three months, all participants in this study had a continuous interstitial glucose monitor (CGM). QoL was assessed by the Pediatric QoL Questionnaire PedsQL 3.0 - Diabetes Mellitus Module. Scores were separated into tertiles.
RESULTS: Both groups had homogeneous general characteristics and mean HbA1c above the recommended levels. The QoL level in the IG and its guardians at T180 showed no differences but girls showed lower QoL scores at T0. Participants in the CG with intermediate perceptions showed a reduction in their QoL in the category "barriers to treatment" in relation to IG. The IG showed a significant increase in adherence to the carbohydrate counting method (CHCM). QoL, according to the parents'/guardians' perception, was lower than that of their children.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention failed to significantly affect glycemic control either in HbA1c or in time in the therapeutic range. The intervention and CGM failed to improve glycemic control and QoL in individuals living with T1D and suboptimal glycemic control. However, it significantly increased adherence to CHCM.
METHOD: In this prospective interventional study, 47 participants were divided into an intervention group (IG), which underwent a six-month in-person and online multiprofessional education program, and a control group (CG), which received standard in-person follow-up. After three months, all participants in this study had a continuous interstitial glucose monitor (CGM). QoL was assessed by the Pediatric QoL Questionnaire PedsQL 3.0 - Diabetes Mellitus Module. Scores were separated into tertiles.
RESULTS: Both groups had homogeneous general characteristics and mean HbA1c above the recommended levels. The QoL level in the IG and its guardians at T180 showed no differences but girls showed lower QoL scores at T0. Participants in the CG with intermediate perceptions showed a reduction in their QoL in the category "barriers to treatment" in relation to IG. The IG showed a significant increase in adherence to the carbohydrate counting method (CHCM). QoL, according to the parents'/guardians' perception, was lower than that of their children.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention failed to significantly affect glycemic control either in HbA1c or in time in the therapeutic range. The intervention and CGM failed to improve glycemic control and QoL in individuals living with T1D and suboptimal glycemic control. However, it significantly increased adherence to CHCM.