Spirituality in general practice

In a pluraIist and secular society, as well as in a medical world which is becoming increasingly evidence-based, making a case for consideration of spirituaIity in general practice may seem futile and irrelevant. Notwithstanding such an apparent paradoxical proposal, developments occurring in other specialties 1 as well as in general practice abroad reveal that it is high time that this theme is addressed academically and impIications appIied in local practice.peer-reviewe

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (KidsAP02 study): an open-label, multicentre, multinational, randomised cross-over study protocol

Introduction: Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group. Methods and analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations

Time spent in hypoglycemia according to age and time-of-day: Observations during closed-loop insulin delivery.

OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age-group and time-of-day. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9mmol/l. Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. RESULTS Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-hour period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4%; [IQR 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); p<0.001 for difference between age-groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age-groups. CONCLUSION Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age-group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age-groups

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

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

Assessing Parental Competence and Self-Ratings in Management of Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes and Emergency Glucagon Administration—An Exploratory Observational Study

Background: Parents of pediatric patients with type I diabetes require competence in hypoglycemia management and skills in glucagon administration to deal with potentially life-threatening severe hypoglycemia. We aimed to compare parents’ subjective self-ratings to an objective expert assessment of competences and skills in dealing with severe hypoglycemia. Methods: We interviewed 140 participants to assess their subjective self-ratings. The objective expert assessments used a standardized clinical case scenario of severe hypoglycemia and a practical demonstration of glucagon administration. Results: The participants self-rated their competence in hypoglycemia management as good (5) or very good (6), and their skills in administering glucagon as acceptable (3) [Scale: very poor (1) to very good (6)]. In the standardized clinical case scenario, 1.4% (2/140) of participants named all relevant steps of severe hypoglycemia management. In the practical demonstration of glucagon administration, 92.9% (130/140) of participants committed at least one drug handling error; 52.1% (73/140) committed at least one drug handling error rated with high clinical risk. Conclusions: We found discrepancies regarding participants’ subjective self-ratings compared to their performance in the respective objective expert assessments. These discrepancies indicate a lack of error awareness and the need for intervention studies to improve competence in hypoglycemia management and glucagon administration