Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
More to Explore...
View this project's study protocol.
Helping Families Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Adolescents
Principal investigator Elizabeth Cox, MD, PhD talks about what prompted her to pursue research that's long-term goal is to provide families with the best help for managing diabetes.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. The comments and responses included the following:
- Reviewers asked what barriers prevented a substantial fraction of potential participants from joining the study. The researchers explained that the main barrier was coordination of group sessions in the diabetes clinics. They designed sessions to be tied with routine diabetes clinic appointments, but there were many more families interested in participating than there were available clinic appointments to accompany the group-based intervention. The seemingly low participation rates did not reflect families’ lack of willingness to participate and did not seem to affect how representative study participants were of the overall population.
- Reviewers deemed the study important and well reported. Reviewers did wonder why the interventions did seem to show effects at one of the two sites but not overall. The researchers responded that they did not know what differences between sites led to greater success at one site and not the other, but they added more discussion about possible reasons for the different outcomes. These included reasons such as differences in implementation fidelity at the two sites or the possibility that teens struggle more with self-management than slightly younger children.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results