Papers on randomized controlled trials of interventions published within time-limit of the review (2004–2008).
The science of intervention development for type 1 diabetes in childhood: systematic review
Article first published online: 23 AUG 2010
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 66, Issue 12, pages 2604–2619, December 2010
How to Cite
Savage, E., Farrell, D., McManus, V. and Grey, M. (2010), The science of intervention development for type 1 diabetes in childhood: systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66: 2604–2619. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05423.x
- Issue published online: 14 NOV 2010
- Article first published online: 23 AUG 2010
- Accepted for publication 18 June 2010
- intervention development;
- randomized controlled trails;
- systematic review;
- type I diabetes
savage e., farrell d., mcmanus v. & grey m. (2010) The science of intervention development for type 1 diabetes in childhood: systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(12), 2604–2613.
Aim. This paper is a report of a review of the science of intervention development for type 1 diabetes in childhood and its implications for improving health outcomes in children, adolescents, and/or their families.
Background. Previous reviewers have identified insufficient evidence to support the application of effective interventions for type 1 diabetes in clinical practice. The need for quality randomized controlled trials to address shortcomings in previous study designs has been highlighted as a priority for future intervention research. However, there is also a need to consider the scientific development of interventions, which to date has received little attention.
Data source. A search for published randomized controlled trials over 5 years (2004–2008) was conducted in electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Psychinfo, ERIC). Reference lists of papers identified from electronic searches were examined for additional papers.
Methods. A systematic review was conducted. Studies were included if (i) an intervention for managing any aspect of type 1 diabetes was implemented, (ii) children, adolescents and/or their families were sampled, (iii) a randomized controlled trial, (iv) published in English.
Results. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were reviewed on education (n = 7), psychosocial (n = 5) and family therapy (n = 2) interventions. Compared to education interventions, family therapy and most psychosocial interventions were developed with greater scientific rigour, and demonstrated promising effects on more health outcomes measured.
Conclusion. Interventions developed within clearly-defined scientific criteria offer potential for improving health outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their families. Future reviews on interventions for type 1 diabetes in childhood need to include criteria for assessing the science of intervention development.