Eveline R Goethals1, Sarah S Jaser2, Chris Verhaak3, Sofie Prikken4, Kristina Casteels5, Koen Luyckx6, Alan M Delamater7. 1. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Eveline.Goethals@kuleuven.be. 2. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 4. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium. 5. University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; UNIBS, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. 7. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Mailman Center for Child Development, Miami, FL, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Although research exists on parental communication in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D), the role of communication by health care providers remains understudied. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, this study examined the role of autonomy-supportive communication (i.e., providing meaningful rationale and offering choices with regard to treatment recommendations) by providers and parents, and how they interact in the prediction of diabetes outcomes. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 135 adolescents (mean age 14.3 ± 2.1SD years), 171 mothers, and 121 fathers reported on autonomy-supportive communication from health care providers and parents, and on adolescent treatment adherence. HbA1c values were retrieved from the medical record. RESULTS: In adolescent reports, perceived autonomy-supportive communication from providers but not from parents was positively related to treatment adherence. A significant interaction between autonomy-supportive communication from providers and parents pointed to the highest level of treatment adherence when adolescents perceived both providers and parents as autonomy-supportive. In contrast, parental reports revealed that parental autonomy-supportive communication was positively related to treatment adherence, whereas autonomy-supportive communication by providers was not. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy-supportive communication by providers and parents is associated with better treatment adherence in adolescents with T1D. Interventions to improve autonomy-supportive communication by parents and providers may improve treatment adherence of adolescents (e.g., communication training).
AIMS: Although research exists on parental communication in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D), the role of communication by health care providers remains understudied. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, this study examined the role of autonomy-supportive communication (i.e., providing meaningful rationale and offering choices with regard to treatment recommendations) by providers and parents, and how they interact in the prediction of diabetes outcomes. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 135 adolescents (mean age 14.3 ± 2.1SD years), 171 mothers, and 121 fathers reported on autonomy-supportive communication from health care providers and parents, and on adolescent treatment adherence. HbA1c values were retrieved from the medical record. RESULTS: In adolescent reports, perceived autonomy-supportive communication from providers but not from parents was positively related to treatment adherence. A significant interaction between autonomy-supportive communication from providers and parents pointed to the highest level of treatment adherence when adolescents perceived both providers and parents as autonomy-supportive. In contrast, parental reports revealed that parental autonomy-supportive communication was positively related to treatment adherence, whereas autonomy-supportive communication by providers was not. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy-supportive communication by providers and parents is associated with better treatment adherence in adolescents with T1D. Interventions to improve autonomy-supportive communication by parents and providers may improve treatment adherence of adolescents (e.g., communication training).
Authors: Andrea Croom; Deborah J Wiebe; Cynthia A Berg; Rob Lindsay; David Donaldson; Carol Foster; Mary Murray; Michael T Swinyard Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2010-08-17
Authors: Tonja R Nansel; Barbara J Anderson; Lori M B Laffel; Bruce G Simons-Morton; Jill Weissberg-Benchell; Tim Wysocki; Ronald J Iannotti; Grayson N Holmbeck; Korey K Hood; Amanda S Lochrie Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Deborah J Wiebe; Chong Man Chow; Debra L Palmer; Jonathan Butner; Jorie M Butler; Peter Osborn; Cynthia A Berg Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2014-03-06
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Cynthia A Berg; Tara Queen; Jonathan E Butner; Sara L Turner; Amy Hughes Lansing; Alexandra Main; Jessica H Anderson; Brian C Thoma; Joel B Winnick; Deborah J Wiebe Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: Cynthia A Berg; MaryJane Simms Campbell; Robert G Kent de Grey; Jonathan E Butner; Mary Murray; Deborah J Wiebe Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2022-06-07
Authors: Joyce P Yi-Frazier; Kirsten Senturia; Davene R Wright; Cara Lind; Faisal S Malik Journal: J Pediatr Nurs Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 2.523