Lower Independent Self-Care Readiness Persists over Time in Teens with Type 1 Diabetes and Executive Function Challenges.

PURPOSE: Management of type 1 diabetes is complex and benefits from adequate executive function (EF) (planning, organization, problem-solving). Teens with diabetes and executive dysfunction may have challenges with acquisition of self-care skills. METHODS: Over 18 months, parents of teens with type 1 diabetes aged 13-17 completed the Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ) and Readiness for Independent Self-Care Questionnaire (RISQ) every 6 months. Parents assessed teen EF, completing the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). T-score ≥60 defined EF challenges. EF, demographic, and diabetes treatment variables predicted RISQ score over time using longitudinal mixed modeling with false discovery rate adjustment. RESULTS: There were 169 teen participants (54% male) aged 15.9±1.3 years, diabetes duration 8.4±3.7 years, and A1c 8.6±1.2%. About a third (31.4%) of teens had parent-reported BRIEF Global Executive Composite (GEC) scores ≥60. After adjusting for age, gender, and DFRQ, those with GEC <60 had RISQ score 4.1 points higher than those with GEC ≥60, p=0.016. Behavioral regulation index (BRI; adjusted for age, CGM use, DFRQ, and A1c) did not predict RISQ while metacognition index (MI; adjusted for age, gender, and DFRQ) did; those with MI <60 had RISQ score 5.3 points higher than those with MI ≥60, p<0.001. In all models, older teen age (p<0.05) and less parental involvement (p<0.001) predicted higher RISQ score. CONCLUSIONS: EF skills, especially metacognition, appear important for acquisition of self-care behaviors in teens with type 1 diabetes. Evaluating EF during adolescence may identify teens needing extra support during the transition process.

Effects of Macronutrient Intake and Number of Meals on Glycemic Outcomes Over 1 Year in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: Insulin bolus doses derive from glucose levels and planned carbohydrate intake, although fat and protein impact glycemic excursions. We examined the impact of macronutrients and number of daily meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Youth (N = 136, ages 8-17) with type 1 diabetes completed 3-day food records, wore 3-day masked continuous glucose monitoring, and had A1c measurements every 3 months for 1 year. Diet data were analyzed using Nutrition Data System for Research. Longitudinal mixed models assessed effects of macronutrient intake and number of meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes. Results: At baseline, youth (48% male) had mean age of 12.8 ± 2.5 years and diabetes duration of 5.9 ± 3.1 years; 73% used insulin pumps. Baseline A1c was 8.1% ± 1.0%, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (%TIR) was 49% ± 17%, % time below range <70 mg/dL (%TBR) was 6% ± 8%, % time above range >180 mg/dL (%TAR) was 44% ± 20%, and glycemic variability as coefficient of variation (CV) was 41% ± 8%; macronutrient intake included 48% ± 5% carbohydrate, 36% ± 5% fat, and 16% ± 2% protein. Most youth (56%) reported 3-4 meals/snacks daily (range 1-9). Over 1 year, greater carbohydrate intake was associated with lower A1c (P = 0.0003), more %TBR (P = 0.0006), less %TAR (P = 0.002), and higher CV (P = 0.03). Greater fat intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.006), less %TBR (P = 0.002), and more %TAR (P = 0.005). Greater protein intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.01). More daily meals/snacks were associated with lower A1c (P = 0.001), higher %TIR (P = 0.0006), and less %TAR (P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Both fat and protein impact glycemic outcomes. Future automated insulin delivery systems should consider all macronutrients for timely insulin provision. The present research study derived from secondary analysis of the study registered under NCT00999375.

Text messaging to enhance glucose monitoring and self-care in teens with type 1 diabetes: Teens' perceptions predict outcomes.

AIMS: We assessed association between how teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceived a text-messaging (TM) reminder system to check glucose levels and how their perceptions related to their responsiveness to TM reminders to check glucose levels. METHODS: Teens received TM reminders 1-4 times daily to check glucose levels and to reply with the result. Qualitative assessments were performed quarterly. Teens were categorized by perceptions expressed at the majority of the visits and their TM responsiveness over 18 months. RESULTS: There were 135 teens (51 % male), with a mean age of 14.8 ± 1.2 years, receiving TM reminders. Distribution of participants' perceptions was 37 % positive (POS), 35 % neutral (with both positive and negative responses (POS/NEG)), and 28 % negative (NEG). Teens with POS perceptions about TM reminders were more likely to respond with a glucose value to the TM reminders than teens with NEG or POS/NEG perceptions (p = 0.002). Youth with POS perceptions and TM responsiveness on ≥ 50 % of days had an 0.81 % improvement in their HbA1c (p = 0.004) over 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Teens with POS perceptions to TM reminders were likely to respond and their responsiveness yielded glycemic benefit, suggesting need to consider opinions of teens with T1D to maximize their intervention engagement and resulting benefits.