Results Summary

What was the research about?

About 165,000 children in the United States have type 1 diabetes. Because their bodies don’t make insulin, these children must carefully manage their blood sugar every day. Children and their parents may struggle to manage the disease and keep the child healthy.

In this study, the research team compared families who received usual diabetes care with families who got resources tailored to the families’ concerns about managing diabetes.

The research team compared how each approach helped children. They also looked at whether children’s and parents’ quality of life improved.

What were the results?

The groups didn’t differ in the children’s diabetes control or in children’s and parents’ quality of life. At one clinic, youth ages 13 to 16 who got tailored resources had better diabetes control than those who had usual care.

Who was in the study?

The study included 214 families of children ages 8 to 16 with diabetes. Of the children, 51 percent were male, 84 percent were white, 3 percent were black, 6 percent were multiple or other races, and 8 percent were Hispanic. All children were patients at one of two diabetes clinics in Wisconsin. Of the parents, 85 percent were mothers and the average age was 42.

What did the research team do?

The research team assigned families to one of two groups by chance. The first group got usual care. They met with diabetes clinic staff about every three months for a check-up and to update their care plan.

In the second group, children and their parents each took a survey that asked about concerns managing diabetes. Families in this group were invited to 75-minute group sessions that met on days when patients had clinic visits. Sessions met four times over nine months. Each session focused on specific concerns found by the survey, like the pain and bother of treatment or how families can manage care together.

In both groups, children and parents filled out surveys about their quality of life before, during, and after the study. The research team looked at children’s health records to track their blood sugar control.

Health system managers, clinicians, diabetes advocates, and children with diabetes and their parents worked with the research team to plan and conduct the study.

What were the limits of the study?

The study only included two clinics and only families that could speak or read English. Results might be different at other clinics or with families that don’t speak English. Because diabetes control improved for older children at one clinic, future research could explore whether group sessions help some patients compared with usual care.

How can people use the results?

Researchers could use results from this study to plan studies on other ways to help patients and families manage diabetes. They also could look at why the group sessions helped some patients more than usual care.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Engagement Resources

Peer-Review Summary

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

Project Information

Elizabeth D. Cox, MD, PhD
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Family-Centered Tailoring of Pediatric Diabetes Self-Management Resources

Key Dates

September 2013
December 2018

Study Registration Information


Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 14, 2024