PURPOSE: To investigate the associations between momentary social context and glucose monitoring adherence in adolescents with type 1diabetes (T1D). METHODS: For 14 days, patients (14-18 years old, T1D duration >1 year) of a pediatric diabetes clinic carried handheld computers that prompted them to report their location, companionship, and attitudes toward companions at the times they usually checked their glucose, and again 30 minutes later to report whether they checked their glucose and, if not, why. Associations between social context factors and checking glucose (adherence) were analyzed using logistic generalized estimating equations and adjusted for age, sex, duration of T1D, and pump use. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants (mean age 16.6 ± 1.5 years, mean duration of T1D 8.7 ± 4.4 years) completed 971 context and 1,210 adherence reports, resulting in 805 paired reports. Median signal response rate was 63%. The odds of checking glucose was higher when participants expressed very strong desire to blend in (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07-4.94, p = .03). Strong desire to impress others was associated with decreased likelihood of checking glucose (AOR = .52, 95% confidence interval .28-.97, p = .04.) Location, solitude, type of companion, and attitudes toward companions were not significantly associated with checking glucose. CONCLUSIONS: Desire to blend in may support glucose monitoring adherence and desire to impress others may impede this behavior in adolescents with T1D. Other dimensions of social context were not linked to checking glucose in this study.
PURPOSE: To investigate the associations between momentary social context and glucose monitoring adherence in adolescents with type 1diabetes (T1D). METHODS: For 14 days, patients (14-18 years old, T1D duration >1 year) of a pediatric diabetes clinic carried handheld computers that prompted them to report their location, companionship, and attitudes toward companions at the times they usually checked their glucose, and again 30 minutes later to report whether they checked their glucose and, if not, why. Associations between social context factors and checking glucose (adherence) were analyzed using logistic generalized estimating equations and adjusted for age, sex, duration of T1D, and pump use. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants (mean age 16.6 ± 1.5 years, mean duration of T1D 8.7 ± 4.4 years) completed 971 context and 1,210 adherence reports, resulting in 805 paired reports. Median signal response rate was 63%. The odds of checking glucose was higher when participants expressed very strong desire to blend in (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07-4.94, p = .03). Strong desire to impress others was associated with decreased likelihood of checking glucose (AOR = .52, 95% confidence interval .28-.97, p = .04.) Location, solitude, type of companion, and attitudes toward companions were not significantly associated with checking glucose. CONCLUSIONS: Desire to blend in may support glucose monitoring adherence and desire to impress others may impede this behavior in adolescents with T1D. Other dimensions of social context were not linked to checking glucose in this study.
Authors: Anthony A Hains; Kristoffer S Berlin; W Hobart Davies; Elaine A Parton; Ramin Alemzadeh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lydia A Shrier; Henry A Feldman; Shimrit K Black; Courtney Walls; Ashley D Kendall; Christopher Lops; William R Beardslee Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2011-07-14
Authors: Angela D Liese; Ralph B D'Agostino; Richard F Hamman; Patrick D Kilgo; Jean M Lawrence; Lenna L Liu; Beth Loots; Barbara Linder; Santica Marcovina; Beatriz Rodriguez; Debra Standiford; Desmond E Williams Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Vicki S Helgeson; Kerry A Reynolds; Oscar Escobar; Linda Siminerio; Dorothy Becker Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Joseph R Rausch; Korey K Hood; Alan Delamater; Jennifer Shroff Pendley; Jennifer M Rohan; Grafton Reeves; Lawrence Dolan; Dennis Drotar Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Sarah Vaala; Korey K Hood; Cindy Lybarger; Rachel Carroll; Laura Williams; Douglas C Schmidt; Kevin Johnson; Mary S Dietrich; Lori Laffel Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jessica T Markowitz; Tara Cousineau; Debra L Franko; Alan T Schultz; Meredith Trant; Rachel Rodgers; Lori M B Laffel Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-06-22
Authors: María de Los Ángeles Núñez-Baila; Anjhara Gómez-Aragón; José Rafael González-López Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-20 Impact factor: 3.390