Skip to main content

Table 4 Study characteristics and quality appraisal for intervention studies (Stream 1)

From: An ongoing struggle: a mixed-method systematic review of interventions, barriers and facilitators to achieving optimal self-care by children and young people with Type 1 Diabetes in educational settings

Study/Country

Design

Participant details

Age (years)

Quality appraisal

Provider of intervention

Children and young people with T1D at school settings

 

Izquierdo et al.[31] US

RCT – 2 arms

25 schools with 41 children randomised

Target range: Kindergarten to 8th grade (≤13 years)

See Table 3

Intervention (n = 23) Usual care (n = 18)

Intervention: 9.74 ± 2.18 years

School nurse/PDSN

Control 10.56 ± 2.5 years

Engelke et al.[35] US

Before and after study

36 children

Target range 5–19 years

ABCDEGHI

School nurse

Actual age of sample not specified

Nguyen et al.[30] US

RCT – 2 arms

36 children

I: Range 11–16 years

See Table 3

I (n = 18)/C (n = 18)

Mean 14.0 + 1.8 years

School nurse/Parents

C: Range 10–17 years

Mean 13.3 + 1.7

Faro et al.[36] US

Before and after study

27 children

Target range: Kindergarten to 6th grade (≤11 years)

ABCEH

PNP

Actual age of sample not specified

Wdowik et al.[37] US

Controlled trial

31 university students

Actual range: 18 to 27 years

ABCDEHI

I (n = 21)/C (n = 10)

Mean 22 years

RD/CED

School personnel working with children and young people with T1D

 

Husband et al.[32] Canada

RCT – 2 arms

44 elementary teachers

Sample characteristics of children with T1D not specified

See Table 3

I (n = 22)/C (n = 22)

Diabetes researchers

 

Siminerio and Koerbel [38] US

Before and after study

156 school personnel from six school districts

Not linked to specific children with T1D

ABCEF

Diabetes educators (n = 2)

Cunningham and Wodrich [39]

US

Analog experiment (allocated)

90 regular & SE elementary teachers from 4 schools

Not linked to specific children with T1D

ABCDEFI

Researchers

Wodrich [40]

US

Analog experiment (random assignment)

122 CE & P-S teachers from 1 university

Not linked to specific children with T1D

ABCDEFI

Researchers

Bullock et al.[41]

US

Cohort study

537 school nurses

Not linked to specific children with T1D

ABCDEFHI

Participation in an on-line CEP for T1D (n = 120)

Who had not participated in CEP for T1D

(n = 417)

Researchers from MDHSS/MUSSON

Bachman and Hsueh [42]

US

Program evaluation

15 school nurses

Not linked to specific children with T1D

ABCDEFHI

Participated in an on-line CEP for T1D

  

Researchers

  
  1. Key: BG – Blood glucose, C – Control; CE – Continuing Education; CED - Certified Diabetes Educator; CEP - Continuing Education Program; I – Intervention; MDHSS - Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; MUSSON - University of Missouri Sinclair School of Nursing; PDSN - Paediatric Diabetes Specialist Nurse; PEP - Paediatric Nurse Practitioner; P-S – Pre-Service; RCT – Randomised Controlled Trial; RD – Registered Dietician; SE – Special Education; T1D - Type 1 Diabetes UC – Usual Care
  2. Quality criteria key: A-Clear statement of the aims of the study; B-Adequate description of the context for the study; C-Clear specification of research design and its appropriateness for the research aims; D-Reporting of clear details of the sample and method of recruitment/sampling; E-Clear description of data collection; F-Clear description data analysis provided G-Attempts made to establish rigour of data analysis; H-Discussion of ethical issues / approval details; I-Inclusion of sufficient original data to support interpretations and conclusions.