Laura B Smith1, Kristian F Lynch2, Kimberly A Driscoll3, Suzanne Bennett Johnson4. 1. Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 2. Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA. 3. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 4. Department of Medical Humanities and Social Sciences, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined parental diabetes monitoring behaviors in a cohort of children at increased genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that being informed of a positive islet autoantibody (IA) would increase monitoring behaviors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study follows 8676 children with high-risk human leucocyte antigen-DQ genotypes from birth to age 15, including general population (GP) children and those with a first-degree relative (FDR) with diabetes. Data on parental monitoring behaviors were solicited yearly. Serum samples were tested for IA and parents were informed of child results. We examined parental monitoring behaviors during the first 7 years of TEDDY. RESULTS: In IA- children, the most common monitoring behavior was participating in TEDDY study tasks; up to 49.8% and 44.2% of mothers and fathers, respectively, reported this. Among FDRs, 7%-10% reported watching for diabetes symptoms and 7%-9% reported monitoring the child's glucose, for mothers and fathers, respectively. After IA+ notification, all monitoring behaviors significantly increased in GP parents; only glucose monitoring increased in FDR parents and these behaviors continued for up to 4 years. FDR status, accurate diabetes risk perception, and anxiety were associated with glucose monitoring in IA+ and IA- cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents view TEDDY participation as a way to monitor for type 1 diabetes, a benefit of enrollment in a longitudinal study with no prevention offered. IA+ notification increases short- and long-term monitoring behaviors. For IA- and IA+ children, FDR parents engage in glucose monitoring, even when not instructed to do so.
OBJECTIVE: We examined parental diabetes monitoring behaviors in a cohort of children at increased genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that being informed of a positive islet autoantibody (IA) would increase monitoring behaviors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study follows 8676 children with high-risk human leucocyte antigen-DQ genotypes from birth to age 15, including general population (GP) children and those with a first-degree relative (FDR) with diabetes. Data on parental monitoring behaviors were solicited yearly. Serum samples were tested for IA and parents were informed of child results. We examined parental monitoring behaviors during the first 7 years of TEDDY. RESULTS: In IA- children, the most common monitoring behavior was participating in TEDDY study tasks; up to 49.8% and 44.2% of mothers and fathers, respectively, reported this. Among FDRs, 7%-10% reported watching for diabetes symptoms and 7%-9% reported monitoring the child's glucose, for mothers and fathers, respectively. After IA+ notification, all monitoring behaviors significantly increased in GP parents; only glucose monitoring increased in FDR parents and these behaviors continued for up to 4 years. FDR status, accurate diabetes risk perception, and anxiety were associated with glucose monitoring in IA+ and IA- cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents view TEDDY participation as a way to monitor for type 1 diabetes, a benefit of enrollment in a longitudinal study with no prevention offered. IA+ notification increases short- and long-term monitoring behaviors. For IA- and IA+ children, FDR parents engage in glucose monitoring, even when not instructed to do so.
Authors: Amy E Baughcum; Suzanne Bennett Johnson; Stacy K Carmichael; Adam B Lewin; Jin-Xiong She; Desmond A Schatz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: T Kimpimäki; P Kulmala; K Savola; P Vähäsalo; H Reijonen; J Ilonen; H K Akerblom; M Knip Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrea K Steck; Helena Elding Larsson; Xiang Liu; Riitta Veijola; Jorma Toppari; William A Hagopian; Michael J Haller; Simi Ahmed; Beena Akolkar; Åke Lernmark; Marian J Rewers; Jeffrey P Krischer Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.409
Authors: Laura B Smith; Kristian F Lynch; Judith Baxter; Barbro Lernmark; Roswith Roth; Tuula Simell; Suzanne Bennett Johnson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 17.152