Psychological Well-Being of Parents of Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes - Baseline Assessment.

Background: Type 1 diabetes in young children is a heavy parental burden. As part of pilot phase of the KIDSAP01 study, we conducted a baseline assessment in parents to study the association between hypoglycemia fear, parental well-being and child behavior. Methods: All parents were invited to fill in baseline questionnaires: hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS), WHO-5, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Results: 24 children (median age: 5-year, range 1-7 years, 63% male, mean diabetes duration: 3 ± 1.7 years) participated. 23/24 parents filled out the questionnaires. We found a higher score for the hypoglycemia fear behavior 33.9 ± 5.6 compared to hypoglycemia worry 34.6 ± 12.2. Median WHO-5 score was 16 (8 - 22) with poor well-being in two parents. Median daytime sleepiness score was high in five parents (>10). For six children a high total behavioral difficulty score (>16) was reported. Pro social behavior score was lower than normal in six children (<6). Parental well-being was negatively associated with HFS total (r = - 0.50, p <.05) and subscale scores (r = - 0.44, p <.05 for HFS-Worry and HFS-Behavior), child behavior (r = - 0.45, p = .05) and positively with child age and diabetes duration (r = 0.58, p <.01, r = 0.6, p <.01). HFS, parental well-being nor daytime sleepiness are associated with the HbA1c. Conclusion: Regular screening of parental well-being, hypoglycemia fear and child behavior should be part of routine care to target early intervention.

Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: Experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. METHODS: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored. RESULTS: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. CONCLUSIONS: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

Exploring Variation in Glycemic Control Across and Within Eight High-Income Countries: A Cross-sectional Analysis of 64,666 Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: International studies on childhood type 1 diabetes (T1D) have focused on whole-country mean HbA1c levels, thereby concealing potential variations within countries. We aimed to explore the variations in HbA1c across and within eight high-income countries to best inform international benchmarking and policy recommendations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected between 2013 and 2014 from 64,666 children with T1D who were <18 years of age across 528 centers in Germany, Austria, England, Wales, U.S., Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. We used fixed- and random-effects models adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration, and minority status to describe differences between center means and to calculate the proportion of total variation in HbA1c levels that is attributable to between-center differences (intraclass correlation [ICC]). We also explored the association between within-center variation and children's glycemic control. RESULTS: Sweden had the lowest mean HbA1c (59 mmol/mol [7.6%]) and together with Norway and Denmark showed the lowest between-center variations (ICC ≤4%). Germany and Austria had the next lowest mean HbA1c (61-62 mmol/mol [7.7-7.8%]) but showed the largest center variations (ICC ∼15%). Centers in England, Wales, and the U.S. showed low-to-moderate variation around high mean values. In pooled analysis, differences between counties remained significant after adjustment for children characteristics and center effects (P value <0.001). Across all countries, children attending centers with more variable glycemic results had higher HbA1c levels (5.6 mmol/mol [0.5%] per 5 mmol/mol [0.5%] increase in center SD of HbA1c values of all children attending a specific center). CONCLUSIONS: At similar average levels of HbA1c, countries display different levels of center variation. The distribution of glycemic achievement within countries should be considered in developing informed policies that drive quality improvement.