Lack of consideration of socioeconomic factors in transition programme of adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review.

The transition of adolescents with type 1 diabetes should be organized such that loss of follow-up and deterioration of patients' metabolic control are minimized. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to ascertain whether socioeconomic status is featured in the characteristics of adolescents with type 1 diabetes in transition programmes and their inclusion in transition programmes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations. All articles published between 2010 and 2023 were considered. Studies that described a transition programme for adolescents or young adults with T1DM were included. RESULTS: After screening, 18 studies were included. Different transition programmes were proposed (exchanges between professionals, coordinators, and transition clinics). Nine articles described socio-economic factors. The educational level was the most frequently reported. Only three studies evaluated the impact of one parameter on transition success: a lower education level was associated with more hospital visits for hyperglycaemia, and the other did not report any socioeconomic factor associated with clinic attendance. CONCLUSIONS: The socioeconomic status of type 1 diabetes is poorly described in transition programmes, and the few that do make mention of it, offer little information about patient management.

Characteristics of self-management education and support programmes for people with chronic diseases delivered by primary care teams: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care actors can play a major role in developing and promoting access to Self-Management Education and Support (SMES) programmes for people with chronic disease. We reviewed studies on SMES programmes in primary care by focusing on the following dimensions: models of SMES programmes in primary care, SMES team's composition, and participants' characteristics. METHODS: For this mixed-methods rapid review, we searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles in English and French that assessed a SMES programme in primary care for four main chronic diseases (diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease and/or respiratory chronic disease) and published between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2021. We excluded articles on non-original research and reviews. We evaluated the quality of the selected studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We reported the study results following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: We included 68 studies in the analysis. In 46/68 studies, a SMES model was described by focusing mainly on the organisational dimension (n = 24). The Chronic Care Model was the most used organisational model (n = 9). Only three studies described a multi-dimension model. In general, the SMES team was composed of two healthcare providers (mainly nurses), and partnerships with community actors were rarely reported. Participants were mainly patients with only one chronic disease. Only 20% of the described programmes took into account multimorbidity. Our rapid review focused on two databases and did not identify the SMES programme outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the limited implication of community actors and the infrequent inclusion of multimorbidity in the SMES programmes, despite the recommendations to develop a more interdisciplinary approach in SMES programmes. This rapid review identified areas of improvement for SMES programme development in primary care, especially the privileged place of nurses in their promotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021268290 .