A Crowdsourced Social Media Portal for Parents of Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes
Phase: NA
Conditions: Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Sponsor: Nemours Children's Clinic

 
 
 
 
 
A Crowdsourced Social Media Portal for Parents of Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes 
 
NCT03222180 
 
August 20, 2019 

1 
 
2. SPECIFIC AIMS In response to PA-DK-14-022, we propose to design and test an intervention to improve 
management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in very young children (<6 years). Parents of very young children with 
T1D (YC-T1D) often experience distress and anxiety that can impede T1D care, threatening the child’s current 
and future adaptation to T1D.Typical health care often does not equip parents to contend with these issues, 
but YC-T1D parents can offer support/guidance to each other to promote  parental coping and thus child 
outcomes. The many obstacles to direct interaction among parents suggest that social media may be an 
efficacious way to facilitate timely, meaningful and needed social support such as parenting guidance, affective 
support, provision of information, and sharing of creative solutions to common T1D management problems in 
YC-T1D. Many good social media resources exist, but there is not a focused portal that facilitates parents’ 
access to these resources, nor have potential benefits been validated empirically. We will apply crowdsourcing 
methods to achieve the iterative development and initial evaluation of an online resource designed by and for 
YC-T1D parents with continuous input from health professionals and technical expertise in crowdsourcing and 
application development provided by our web development agency partners (e-city interactive, Philadelphia)  
and Nemours web development team.  
 
Crowdsourcing is a flexible online activity that has been applied to diverse problems in many fields, including 
public health, with four elements: 1.) An organization that has a task it needs to be performed, (development of 
an online resource that meets the needs of parents of YC-T1D); 2.) A community, “the crowd”, that agrees to 
perform the necessary tasks voluntarily (here parents of YC-T1D, T1D clinicians, and professional application 
developers); 3.) An online environment that allows the work to take place by enabling collaboration between 
the crowd and the organization, (the infrastructure proposed in this grant); and 4.) Mutual benefit for the 
organization and members of the crowd (better glycemic control, improved quality of life and decreased burden 
of care for YC-T1D and their families).  
 
To our knowledge, crowdsourcing has not been applied to the design and development of online health 
behavior resources such as that proposed in this application. We will design the portal with our stakeholders 
based on principles of User-Centered Design and then collect preliminary data needed to justify and then 
conduct a rigorous controlled trial of the effectiveness of an online resource that will provide parents of YC-T1D 
(<6 years old) with timely, responsible, safe and effective support and guidance regarding parental 
management of common behavioral, affective and cognitive barriers to effective T1D care in this age group. 
The proposed work will address these specific aims:  
Aim 1: We will use crowdsourcing methods to 1.) Identify the most important concerns about management of 
YC-T1D from key stakeholders (parents, pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes nurses, dietitians, psychologists 
and social workers) to specify content areas that the online resource should address; 2.) Collaborate with 
parents (with available input from T1D professionals) to design the optimal content, structure, functions and 
governance of a social media resource for parents of YC-T1D to improve daily T1D care and problem solving, 
to enhance parental coping with sources of distress and care burden that uniquely affect this clinical population 
and to facilitate parents’ access to and use of other beneficial resources of the diabetes online community. 
Aim 2: We will iteratively incorporate the knowledge, experience and perspectives gained in Aim 1 to 
systematically build and refine an online resource enabling parents of very young children with T1D to obtain 
real-time emotional support, information and parenting guidance, enabling them to cope more effectively with 
the daily demands of diabetes management in this population. We will rely on the web development agency 
partners, Nemours web development team, and ongoing stakeholder input. 
Aim 3: We will conduct a randomized controlled trial of a final version of the online resource with parents of 
150 children <6 years old who receive T1D care at any Nemours operating entity in the Delaware Valley and 
Florida or via online recruiting of eligible parents living elsewhere in the United States, using a variety of 
internet resources. We will explore treatment effects on metabolic, behavioral and affective outcomes of T1D 
care, patterns of portal utilization by parents and users’ feedback on website use during and after the trial.  
 
Having designed, built, tested, validated and refined the proposed online resource, we will be well-positioned to 
plan and complete a rigorous randomized controlled trial to evaluate effects of portal use/access on metabolic, 
behavioral, affective and social outcomes of T1D care for YC-T1D. While completing Aim 3, we will solidify 
partnerships with several key organizations (PEDSnet, T1D Exchange, JDRF, American Diabetes Association) 
to enable economical completion of a major multisite trial. The design of the proposed preliminary RCT will 

2 
 
position us to propose a completely electronic multisite RCT that does not require face to face contact between 
parents and the research team and can be completed totally in cyberspace.  
 
3. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 
3.1. Type 1 Diabetes in Very Young Children: The incidence of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is increasing faster 
among very young (< 6 yrs old) children (YC-T1D) than other age groups.1-6 The public health impact of this 
trend is huge since these patients will have T1D longer, enduring more exposure to risks of long term 
complications and “metabolic memory” impeding future glycemic control.7-15 T1D care in YC-T1D is truly 
challenging. 7-10 Both hypo- and hyper-glycemic exposure have been implicated in the etiology of cognitive 
sequelae. 16-29 Insulin sensitivity is high, 11,14-15, 30 nocturnal hypoglycemia is common, 31-35 and self-regulation of 
eating, sleep, and physical activity of very young children is labile. 11-15, 30, 36-44 These challenges pose major 
impediments to effecting consistent T1D care. Impressive technological advances have been made with insulin 
pumps45-53 and continuous glucose monitors, 54-61 and the long-awaited closed-loop artificial pancreas is 
emerging. 62-69 But, controlled trials of these technologies in YC-T1D have yielded equivocal results 51, 59 and 
use of these technologies may increase the burden of YC-T1D care rather than reducing it.70-71 
 
3.2. Psychological Impact of T1D Care for YC-T1D: T1D care poses major psychological challenges for YC-
T1D and parents 72-90 and how they respond predicts later T1D outcomes.91-92 YC-T1D and their parents must 
cope with challenges such as pain/anxiety from insulin injections or insertion of insulin pump infusion sets,  
blood glucose monitoring, regulation of food intake, balancing insulin with carbohydrate intake, physical activity 
and prevailing glycemia, remediation of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, sick day management, getting 
sufficient sleep and managing T1D care away from home.93-99 YC-T1D and their parents face these demands 
while also striving to negotiate the many developmental challenges that all children encounter.  
 
The burden of T1D care for YC-T1D also takes a psychological toll on parents. Parents face immense 
challenges in managing their responsibility for the T1D regimen. Parents face many psychological threats, 
including risks of depression, anxiety, sleep loss, and reduced self efficacy.72-90 Many parents may also face 
challenges in balancing relationships with partners, relatives and friends and dedicating sufficient energy to 
their other children. Some parents and YC-T1D may be predisposed to succumb to these threats. For YC-T1D, 
these risk factors might include the child’s premorbid developmental status, temperament, emotion regulation,  
attention, pain tolerance, and regularity of eating, sleep and activity.100-105 Risk factors for poor T1D coping 
among parents  include family structure (e.g., single parents), socioeconomic status, parenting skills and style, 
communication and problem solving, health literacy and numeracy, social support, and threats such as food or 
residential insecurity, safety concerns, family conflict and substance abuse that can outweigh T1D as 
priorities.100-104 The psychological well-being of parents impacts T1D outcomes in YC-T1D families. 105-109 Many 
YC-T1D families may find that typical T1D care does not meet their needs in responding to the unique 
behavioral, emotional and situational challenges of raising a YC-T1D child. 72-109 
 
3.3. Dearth of Evidence-Based Interventions for YC-T1D: Many studies affirm the efficacy of individual and 
family-focused,  behavioral interventions targeting T1D care in older youths. 110-113 There have been only a few 
modest intervention trials with YC-T1D114-122 and few pediatric T1D centers routinely offer such services to YC-
T1D families. There are many reasons for this imbalance: Few pediatric T1D centers have enough YC-T1D 
patients to populate a large clinical trial; The developmental and behavioral characteristics of YC-T1D children 
are diverse; a “one size fits all” intervention would be poorly conceived and hard to implement; Professionals 
may feel that YC-T1D children are simply hard to manage and “will grow out of it”; and levels of glycemic 
control are accepted that would be deemed suboptimal in older youths. Studies support the efficacy of many 
behavioral interventions in non-diabetic preschoolers, (e.g., noncompliance, mealtime problems, sleep 
problems, tolerance of medical procedures, and social-emotional competence). 123-124 Research also supports 
the merits of parent training to improve parenting knowledge and skills, children’s behavioral adjustment, and 
parents’ well-being and parenting self-efficacy.123-124 Many of these interventions can be delivered efficaciously 
via electronic platforms,124 but this  evidence base has largely not affected YC-T1D research or clinical care. 
 
3.4. Parent-to-Parent Social Support as an Appealing Intervention Focus: Social support is the provision 
of tangible, informative, emotional or affiliative support to a person by others.125-129 A huge empirical literature 
reveals the robust effects of social support on susceptibility to disease, disease course, adherence, and health 
outcomes. The focus in the proposed work is on the potential benefits for the child patient of increasing the 

3 
 
quality, quantity and timeliness of needed social support to the child’s parent(s) rather than focusing on the 
direct effects of social support on the patient’s health. Compared with substantial empirical research on health 
benefits of social support directed to patients themselves, there is much less research on potential benefits of 
social support to parents for their children with chronic conditions such as T1D. Based on the broader social 
support and health literature, a good match between the nature, timing, and quality of support and the 
recipient’s perceived needs is critical to benefit. Mobilizing timely, relevant, and credible social support from 
other YC-T1D parents, if achieved broadly, could facilitate family coping with T1D and yield major public health 
benefits.130-133 The central tenet of this application is that social media has the potential to achieve this 
objective if it can be harnessed and designed carefully to achieve these ends. 
 
Social support influences coping with T1D in YC-T1D, and a few clinical trials of parent-to-parent support 
interventions show promise, 134-141, but more rigorous studies are needed.. Multi-family T1D support groups are 
commonplace, but there are barriers to this approach with YC-T1D families. Most centers have relatively few 
YC-T1D families, these families tend to have other young children, transporting young children to evening 
events is challenging and the developmental characteristics and needs of very young children change rapidly. 
These issues impeded benefit from multifamily support groups. A social support mechanism designed by and 
for YC-T1D parents that offers parent-to-parent support around shared challenges, is continuously accessible, 
and provides credible guidance to YC-T1D parents about their shared concerns could be a very effective 
resource. Once designed, tested and refined, such a resource could be disseminated globally at low cost. As a 
low intensity intervention with broad reach, targeting families with mild or emerging T1D adjustment problems, 
this resource could have strong preventive effects, facilitate a developmental trajectory of positive T1D coping, 
and enhance parents’ coping and self efficacy. A modest favorable shift in the distribution of YC-T1D outcomes 
for many parents and children could reap huge public health benefits. 
 
3.5. Diabetes Online Community (DOC): A vibrant diabetes online community (websites, blogs, list-serves, 
and groups on Facebook, Twitter, etc.) helps many people cope with T1D. We list these resources in the 
Appendix, but new resources will emerge and others will disappear. Many DOC sites focus on the needs of 
adults who are >90% of diabetes patients. There is no evidence validating benefits of any specific DOC 
resource and there are no well-controlled trials. One small pre-post study (n = 9) found that a web-based social 
support intervention increased self efficacy of parents of children with T1D.142 Another study showed that 
parents who are active in the DOC perceive enhanced social support and diabetes knowledge and place 
significant trust in online content and relationships.143 Few DOC resources target the YC-T1D population and, 
even among those with a pediatric T1D focus, content specific to YC-T1D is limited. Few YC-T1D health care 
providers can stay well-informed about the DOC, thus impeding their endorsements of specific sites. Most 
DOC resources must self-police to ensure that they are scientifically credible, and there is varying success. 
Serious engagement with DOC sites tends to be limited to a minority of users; many/most are passive users. 
The few web resources that focus on YC-T1D parenting are maintained by individuals, lack a solid funding 
source, and thus have limited capabilities. None provides empirically-validated and parent-endorsed parenting 
approaches to common YC-T1D behavior problems or offers systematic parent-to-parent support to enhance 
emotional coping. A deliberate, user-centered approach to the design of an accessible, focused online 
resource for YC-T1D parents could improve T1D outcomes in the YC-T1D population.  
   
3.6. Conceptual Model of Social Media Effects on Diabetes Outcomes: Figure 1 (above) depicts our 
conceptual model, which shows how a carefully designed online resource may enhance timely, pertinent and 
helpful social support received by YC-T1D parents. Moderated and mediated by individual psychological 
characteristics of parents (i.e., demographic variables,  social supports, psychiatric symptoms, parenting self-
efficacy), use of our proposed parent-designed online resource may enhance parents’ appraisal of, and coping 
with, T1D-related distress, and help them to cultivate more effective T1D-specific child behavior management 
and problem solving skills. Increasing the quality, quantity, timeliness and relevance of social support could 
yield better psychological status among parent-users, such as decreased distress, anxiety and depressive 
symptoms, less fear of hypoglycemia and improvements in quality of life, parenting self efficacy, and 
decreased T1D-related problem behaviors of their children. Thus, parents who use the online resource may be 
better equipped to address behavioral and affective barriers to effective T1D care, yielding more effective T1D 
care and problem solving.  Their children, again dependent on individual characteristics (i.e., temperament, 
emotional regulation, impulse control, pain tolerance, and regularity of eating, sleep and physical activity) may 

4 
 
become more cooperative with T1D care and thus enjoy more favorable T1D outcomes (HbA1C, frequency of 
hypoglycemia and quality of life). These hypothesized mechanisms have driven our specification of the specific 
aims, research strategy, measurement plan and analytic plan. 
 
Figure 1. Conceptual model linking social support benefits of use of the proposed online 
resource to T1D management and T1D outcomes. 
 
 
 
The parent-initiated, user-centered design approach 134-136 and the use of crowdsourcing 137-141 to drive the 
design should yield an online resource that is highly engaging, pertinent and potentially helpful. We recognize 
that not all parents will fully utilize or benefit from this resource. Thus, the research strategy includes plans to 
optimize the portal design via established principles of user engagement, to explore characteristics that 
differentiate users and non-users, and to identify mediators of frequent portal use and/or effects on the 
outcomes. Qualitative interviews of study participants at the midpoint and end of the randomized controlled trial 
will guide portal refinements, yielding an exceptional resource that could be tested in a much larger multi-site 
clinical trial. The future multi-site trial could be completed economically since the infrastructure for the consent 
process and the online delivery, use and evaluation of the intervention would already be in place. 
 
3.7. Crowdsourcing134 is a flexible online activity that has been applied to problems in diverse fields, including 
public health, comprising four elements: 1.) An organization that has a task it needs to be performed, (e.g., 
design an online resource meeting YC-T1D parents’ specifications); 2.) A community (crowd), that contributes 
to achieving the specifications (here, three “crowds: parents of YC-T1D, T1D HCPs, and application 
developers); 3.) An online environment that facilitates collaboration between the crowd and the organization, 
(the proposed infrastructure); and 4.) Mutual benefit for the organization and the crowd (better T1D outcomes, 
less distress and better quality of life). Crowdsourced data has been effectively and successfully collected in 
health, medical, and behavioral research.144-147 We will engage three distinct “crowds” who bring differing kinds 
of expertise to the design and development of an online resource:  
• 
A large and diverse group of YC-T1D parents who will be the primary drivers of the design process;  
• 
T1D HCPs  from pediatric endocrinology, nursing, nutrition, social work and psychology; and  
• 
The web development agency partners who will translate the design specifications generated by the 
first two crowds into a functional website meeting those specifications.  
 
In Figure 2, below, we have summarized the design process graphically for a single design element. This 
process will be repeated iteratively for each design element until a functional final website has been created.  
Ideas for elements of the online resource (content, structure, functions. Governance, etc.) will originate with the 
Parent Crowd. With advisory input from an HCP Crowd, the Parent Crowd will iteratively develop specifications 
for portal elements that will be disseminated by our web developer partners. 
 
 

5 
 
Figure 2. Diagram of the process for design and development of the online resource based on iterative 
stakeholder input.  Parents will originate all design concepts, to be refined and finalized via input from 
health care providers and application development experts. 
 
Parent Crowd 
Input
Health Care   
Provider Crowd              
Input
Topcoder 
Developer 
Output
          N        
     60% of
Y  Parents
    Approve?
            
Specifications to 
“Topcoder” 
Crowd
      60% of
    Parents  Y
    Approve?
          N  
Parent- 
Originated 
Design 
Element 
Design Element 
Finalized
                               
 
 
The research team will apply several fundamental principles to the design and operation of the online resource: 
• 
Create a YC-T1D coping resource developed by parents for parents, with assistance when requested 
from health professionals and application developers. 
• 
Apply knowledge about how best to design web applications that are engaging, helpful, and easily 
navigated and that promote and sustain repeated use.  
• 
Focus on providing parents with feasible, effective ways to prevent or reduce children’s behavioral  
barriers to optimal care and diverse ways of coping emotionally with YC-T1D parenting.. 
• 
Integrate an evaluation component to enable users, prospective referring HCPs and potential sponsors  
to know that the resource is scientifically validated to enhance T1D outcomes in YC-T1D.    
• 
Capitalize on users’ established social media habits and preferences and provide useful guidance in   
            selecting and using those resources optimally. 
• 
Offer content that is medically, scientifically and psychologically sound and policed by parents, with  
professional consultation available on an advisory basis. 
• 
Develop a searchable compilation of approaches to common behavioral/emotional barriers to optimal  
T1D care that offer varied options and that have been rated for feasibility/efficacy by other parents. 
• 
Facilitate access by people with low health literacy/numeracy or low internet literacy 
• 
Develop the portal for access via multiple operating systems and mobile devices.  
• 
Anticipate the emergence and disappearance of other social media resources 
 
3.8. Investigators: The team has expertise in all domains needed to fulfill the  specific aims: extensive 
behavioral research in T1D (Wysocki), experience living with and researching T1D (Pierce), qualitative 
research (Aroian), endocrinology and social media (Lee), statistics (Hossain), crowdsourcing, application 
development (e-city interactive;  Nemours Web Developers) and stakeholder engagement (6 Family Advisors).  
 
3.9. Preliminary Studies: These prior studies, most of which focus on or involve YC-T1D families, have 
prepared us well for the proposed work:  
Wysocki, T., et al., Diabetes Care, 1989, 12:524-529. Cross sectional evaluation of general and T1D-specific 
adjustment of preschoolers with T1D and their mothers. Results indicated elevated levels of child internalizing 
behavior disorders and parenting stress. The study validated the Preschool Diabetes Behavior Checklist. 
Wysocki, T., et al Diabetes Care, 1992, 15 (1): 43-52; Wysocki, et al., The Diabetes Educator, 1996, 22, 
(6): 587-591. Internet surveys of health professionals and parents, validating the Diabetes Independence 
Survey, yielding age-defined norms for mastery of 38 T1D self management skills. 
Wysocki, T. & Gavin, L. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2006, 31, (5), 501-511. Cross sectional study 
showing that more paternal involvement in care predicted better adherence and maternal quality of life. 

6 
 
Antal H., et al. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2011, 36, (3), 318-328. Direct observation study of very 
young children’s and parents’ behavior during at-home insulin injections. 
Lochrie, A., et al Pediatric Diabetes, 2009, 10 (1), 59-66; Buckloh, L.M., et al., Diabetes Care, 2008, 31, 
1516-1520; Wysocki, et al., Diabetes Care, 2011, 34, (8), 1701-1705; and Buckloh, et al., Children’s 
Health Care, in press. Four studies of youth and parent knowledge of T1D complications, how they acquired it 
and how they cope with it from the perspectives of youth, parents and diabetes clinicians. 
Wysocki, T. (PCORI grant) “Shared medical decision making in pediatric diabetes”: Design and testing of 
web platforms for facilitating shared decision making among youth with T1D, parents, and clinicians. 
 
3.10. Innovation: This application is innovative in many ways:  
• 
Use of crowdsourcing to build an online resource by and for YC-T1D parents  
• 
Reliance on our web development partners for state of the art application development 
• 
Use of Nemours Virtual Advisory Council platform for communication with the Parent and HCP Crowds 
• 
Capacity to meet parents’ specific social support needs in real time 
• 
Searchable compilation of coping strategies with ratings by parents who use them  
• 
Parent-driven governance of the web portal  
• 
Links to other reputable DOC resources 
• 
Possible adaptation and validation of certain T1D-specific questionnaires for the YC-T1D population 
• 
Electronic informed consent to facilitate participation of parents  
• 
Preparation for a large, multisite trial that could be conducted totally in cyberspace 
4. APPROACH We propose the parent-driven design of an online resource (Website) followed by a preliminary 
clinical trial of this intervention’s efficacy and estimated effect sizes. We will develop the website for parents of 
YC-T1D with stakeholder input including parents as decision makers and HCPs and application developers in 
advisory and technical support roles. A website Design & Development Phase (YR1-2) will be followed by a 
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing Website versus Usual Care (YR3-4). For the website Design & 
Development Phase, parents and HCPs will be recruited through personal contact, organization websites, 
social media sites, and blogs. For the RCT, participants will be recruited through five Nemours T1D centers in 
Florida and the Delaware Valley. This will position us to pursue a future large, multi-site randomized controlled 
trial that could be completed entirely online. Applying principles of User-Centered Design in creating the portal 
yields unknowns about the platform’s eventual content, structure, functions, and governance. The Parent 
Crowd, with advisory input from the HCP Crowd, and technical assistance from the web development agency 
and the Nemours Web Development Team, will make many design decisions like those below. The exact 
outcomes of those decisions are unknown, but the process of reaching the decisions will systematically reflect 
the input of numerous stakeholder experts.  
 
4.1. Website Design and Development Seeking a balance between detailed plans for the proposed Website 
and insistence that it be designed by parents for parents, we have put forth in Figure 3 tentative platform 
elements for initial consideration by the Parent Crowd. These examples will be used to begin that conversation: 
Figure 3. Tentative elements of an online resource designed by and for YC-T1D parents. 
 
 
                                                                                              Welcome Tour 
 
 
 
   Create/Edit Profile &             Internal Search Engine               View Principles                 Connect with Similar                Integrated Evaluation    
     Privacy Settings 
                             
                        of Participation                Members (Self-Selected                    Component     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Matching Criteria) 
    (Questionnaires q 6mo) 
 
 
        Links to T1D 
       T1D-Related Child 
   Parent Challenges in 
        Daily T1D Hassles 
         Creative Postings 
     Social Media and                    Behavior Problems                Emotional Coping 
     (Holidays, Birthdays,                (Art, Music, Poetry,                        
  Parenting Resources                (With Parent-Rated               (With Parent-Rated                       Daycare, etc.; With 
     Humor, Video, Stories,      
                                                             Strategies)  
           Strategies)                   Parent-Rated Strategies)                Cartoons, etc.) 
 
 

7 
 
In addition to considering these tentative portal features, the Parent Crowd will receive advisory input from T1D 
HCPs and technical assistance from the web development agency and Nemours Web Developers in making 
many design decisions. Examples include determining the portal’s Structure (e.g,, Platform appearance, 
name, layout, etc.; Individual or joint registration of mothers and fathers; Device compatibility); Content (e.g., 
Common T1D behavioral and emotional coping problems; degree of medical content; A “For Fathers Only 
section”), Function (e.g., Integrated evaluation system; How to interface with other social media resources; 
Content sharing with child’s HCPs; Methods of engaging low frequency users), and Governance (e.g,, By-
laws, decision making and operating principles; Monitoring of medical accuracy; Degree and nature of 
advocacy efforts). Compared with face-to-face multifamily support groups, the planned online resource 
could be far more robust in improving T1D management and outcomes in YC-T1D and their parents 
since it would be available constantly, it would draw upon the collective wisdom of a large parent 
community, its interactions could be archived, searchable and rated for feasibility and efficacy by 
parent-users and it would be focused solely on the unique needs of the YC-T1D population. 
 
Time Frame: We conservatively estimate that it will require up to 2 years to constitute the Parent and HCP 
Crowds, to design, develop and build the online resource and to integrate it into a Nemours website so that it is 
ready to test in a preliminary randomized controlled trial during Years 3 and 4.  
Family Advisors: 6 parents of YC-T1D children have agreed to serve as Family Advisors. Three participated in 
preparing this application and three joined after demonstrating their enthusiasm as members of the Parent 
Crowd. Each Family Advisor will be paid $2,500 annually in quarterly installments as compensation for their 
service as Family Advisors. Four Family Advisors, who are not parents of Nemours patients, were recruited 
with the assistance of Jeff Hitchcock, founder of childrenwithdiabetes.com. The others are parents of Nemours 
patients and were recruited via nominations from NemoursT1D care providers.  
 
The primary role of Family Advisors in developing this proposal was participation in the initial planning of the 
online resource through meetings via conference call. They also reviewed and commented on the grant 
application and study protocol providing a family perspective on how the portal is to be planned, developed, 
and pilot-tested. If the project is funded, we plan to invite interested parents to continue on as Family Advisors 
to function as members of the research team in helping us to engage many other parents and diabetes 
clinicians nationally in serving as a member of our Parent Crowd, leading the decision making based on crowd 
feedback, helping us to interpret and integrate stakeholder suggestions into the planned platform, and helping 
us to refine the web portal. Since many available questionnaires for T1D research were validated for studies of 
T1D management in school aged children and adolescents, the Family Advisors will also assist us with 
reviewing and possibly adapting certain of the T1D-specific questionnaires to be more pertinent to the YC-T1D 
population. This will enable validation of adapted measures in the preliminary randomized trial to follow, 
bolstering the merits of the measurement plans for a future, multisite randomized controlled trial. 
 
Use of Nemours Virtual Advisory Council platform: Since 2011, Nemours has operated a Virtual Advisory 
Council (VAC) using crowdsourcing technology to engage parents of Nemours patients in decision making 
about varied clinic and hospital operations. Parents are nominated for membership in the VAC by Nemours 
clinicians and then registered to receive e-mailed inquiries with embedded links to a website operated on a 
www.yammer.com platform.  For the proposed design and development work, we have already created a new 
Private Network for the Parent Crowd entitled “T1D_Toddlers” that will provide the functionality to distribute 
either open-ended or forced choice questions, share documents, track group members’ activities on the site 
and compile statistical summaries of query results. A separate Private Network will be created for the HCP 
Crowd. This will enable efficient use of an existing infrastructure for this key element of our Phase I work and 
will be the mechanism through which the Parent and HCP Crowds communicate their preferences and 
recommendations to the research team. This utility permits a wide variety of crowd queries such as forced 
choice, rank-order, and other multiple choice formats as well as free text narrative responses. 
 
Demographic Information Form (DIF): This form used in our prior studies records the child's age, date of 
diagnosis, sex, race, ethnicity, country of origin, language spoken at home, current T1D regimen, parental age 
and gender, family composition, parents' marital status, household income, and  parents’ occupational and 
educational status. We will calculate the Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status, an index of 
socioeconomic status. Parents will describe their use of T1D internet and social media sites.  

8 
 
Participant Eligibility: Prior to initiating recruitment, the Portal Design and Development Phase activities will be 
reviewed and approved by a Nemours IRB. We will seek IRB approval to enable us to obtain informed consent 
electronically. This is approvable since this aspect of the planned work entails negligible risk, all of the 
participants are adults and there will be only existing health data obtained from or about children with T1D. 
Participants will be required to sign the electronic consent form and complete the DIF before proceeding.  
 
Eligibility criteria for the Parent Crowd are: Parent, step-parent or other legal caregiver of a child diagnosed 
with T1D before the age of 6 years as affirmed by a HCP involved in the child’s care: Child with T1D is less 
than 10 years old at enrollment (parents of slightly older children may offer valuable perspectives without being 
too far removed from their experiences); and Ability to communicate in English via the internet; and for the 
HCP Crowd are : Physician, Nurse, Dietitian, Social Worker, Physician Assistant, Psychologist, Exercise 
Physiologist or other credentialed clinician who contributes regularly to the clinical care and/or education of 
YC-T1D patients and parents. A maximum of 10 from any one profession will be recruited.  
 
Recruitment of Parent Crowd: A national sample of >200 parents of YC-T1D (as many as can be recruited) will 
be recruited via the: 1) T1D Exchange registry; 2) www.PEDSnet.org; 3) www.childrenwithdiabetes.com and its 
annual Friends for Life Conference; 4) American Diabetes Association; 5) Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation; 6) Recruitment announcements sent to other DOC sites. Letters of support affirming our capacity 
to recruit parents nationally accompany this application. We will recruit a very diverse sample of parents vis a 
vis race/ethnicity (16% African American; 10% Hispanic; 12% Asian), educational attainment (20% high school 
or less, 60% some college or bachelor’s degree, 20% advanced degree) occupational level (at least 5% in 
each of 9 Hollingshead occupational categories) and current use of T1D-related social media (at least 10% 
each: never, annual, monthly and weekly use). We propose a separate strategy for increasing the diversity of 
our parent crowd by conducting a focus group, the procedures of which are described below. We are optimistic 
about recruiting many fathers for the Parent Crowd since all participation is online and at the convenience of 
the participant. 
 
Recruitment of Health Care Professional (HCP) Crowd: We will recruit > 50 T1D care HCPs (pediatric 
endocrinologists, diabetes educators/nurses, dietitians, social workers, psychologists, and other credentialed 
clinicians who agree to be HCP Crowd members. Drs. Wysocki and Lee have numerous professional contacts 
across North America who could perform this role. We will include no more than 10 from any one profession. 
 
Parent Input:  Before engaging our partners’ expertise around application design and development, we will first 
engage our Parent and HCP Crowds using Nemours VAC platform to develop specifications for portal content, 
structure and function that our web development partners will use in proposing design solutions.. Parent Crowd 
members will be sent Figure 3 above, with a brief summary of the website goals. Queries to the Parent Crowd 
are likely to evolve during the project from the general to the specific, from open-ended to forced-choice, and 
from qualitative to quantitative as the website design process proceeds. Parents will first respond to open-
ended questions about the most important concerns about management of YC-T1D, and will then respond to 
open-ended questions about the optimal structure and functions of the website. Members of the Parent Crowd 
will each be sent a CT Payer Card; funds will be credited to a parent’s card each time that parent responds to a 
question disseminated by the research team. The amount paid will range from $1 to $5 per question answered, 
adjusted by estimated time requirement ($1: < 1 min.; $2: 1-<3; $3: 3-<5; $4: 5-<10; $5: > 10) and the available 
payment will be displayed along with the question to be addressed. 
 
Initial open-ended questions about WEBSITE content: 
1. What are the hardest parts of being the parent of a very young child with T1D? 
2. What, if any, are the behavioral problems seen in your child with T1D? 
3. How do these behavioral problems get in the way of your child’s T1D care? 
4. What are some daily hassles related to taking care of a very young child with T1D? 
5. How does being a parent of a young child with T1D affect your relationships with others? 
6. How does being a parent of a young child with T1D affect your feelings and emotions? 
7. What do you do now to cope with all of these challenges? 
8. What kinds of help would you like the website to give parents like you?  
 
Initial open-ended questions about structure and function, of the website: 

9 
 
9. What would be the ideal layout, design, and structure of the website?  
10. What other social media websites would you like to see it modeled after?  
11. If you use existing diabetes social media websites, what are things you like about what they do? Dislike? 
12. What would you like to see change in how your child copes with T1D care as a result of using the website? 
13. How would you like to change as a result of using the website? 
Dr. Aroian will train and supervise content analysts in qualitative analysis of responses to identify content 
themes and subthemes the website should address. Several of Dr. Wysocki’s research staff are very  
experienced in qualitative content analysis. Parent queries will remain open until thematic saturation is 
achieved (i.e., no new concerns emerge). Trained content analysts will use a descriptive level of analysis, 
using well-accepted content analysis methods via HyperRESEARCH software to extract the primary themes 
that emerge from the interviews. Analysts will be trained to a criterion of 90% inter-rater reliability. Themes will 
be incorporated into content areas based on consensus of the researchers and Family Advisors.  
 
Following these initial open-ended queries, participants will be asked to prioritize the content themes and 
functional and structural elements emanating from parents’ responses to the initial queries by rank ordering 
(from most to least essential). With web developer guidance, the Parent Crowd will then review initial design 
specifications broadly outlining the proposed content, structure and functions that would then be designed in 
detail through multiple design iterations, with each design solution subsequently evaluated by the Parent and 
HCP crowds.  
 
Recruitment of focus group to increase diversity among Parent Crowd Participants: In order for our website to 
be accessible and useful to the entire population, we should strive to achieve exceptional diversity in our 
enrolled samples in terms of household income, education, health literacy/numeracy and internet and social 
media fluency.  We propose an additional recruitment strategy to obtain input in the design and development of 
our online resource from parents who are racial and ethnic minorities and/or who are economically 
disadvantaged (i.e., child is on Medicaid or uninsured). We will recruit up to 20 parents meeting these criteria 
to participate in a focus group.  
 
First, with the assistance of Nemours informatics, we will conduct an EMR query to obtain the first and last 
name, mailing address, phone number, and email address (if available) of mothers and fathers of Nemours 
Orlando, Jacksonville, and Wilmington patients who meet all of the following criteria: 
• 
Type 1 diabetes diagnosis 
• 
Age as of date of query is 9 years or younger 
• 
Age at date of type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 5 or younger 
 
And who meet at least one of these criteria: 
• 
Race: Non-White (any race but White) 
• 
Ethnicity: Hispanic 
• 
Insurance: Medicaid or uninsured 
 
We conducted a feasibility assessment of possible Nemours patients meeting the same criteria, albeit with a 
de-identified database, and found that there were 212 potential participants meeting the above criteria.  
 
We will send the flyer entitled “Recruitment of a Diverse Parent Crowd” to all parents of Nemours patients in 
the database via email (if available) or regular mail (if email is not available). Our study email address 
(crowdsource@nemours.org) and PI’s phone number are provided on the flyer. Parents are instructed to 
contact the research team to sign up for the focus group. As mentioned, we will recruit up to 20 parents from 
the database. If 20 parents do not contact us and consent to participation within two weeks of distribution of the 
flyer, then our research coordinator will telephone parents to invite them to participate. We will be conducting 
the focus group across three Nemours sites (Orlando, Jacksonville, Delaware) via videoconference. The 
date/time of the focus group will be determined pending IRB approval, but will likely take place in the evening 
to accommodate work schedules. Each site will have 1-2 trained focus group facilitators who are all existing 
members of the research team. We have already asked our existing Parent Crowd 16 questions regarding 
parental burden and emotions, impact on the young child with T1D and other family members, and health care 

10 
 
interactions, and we have integrated the responses into a social-ecological framework which will drive the 
content of the online resource. The purpose of this focus group will be to obtain these parents’ perspectives of 
raising a very young child with T1D by asking similar questions to assure that our website content is 
generalizable across demographic groups. The 16 questions posed to the Parent Crowd have been condensed 
into 6 questions (below) which will be asked by the focus group facilitator to prompt discussion. Parents will 
also be asked to complete a demographic form prior to the start of the focus group. At the end of the focus 
group, parents will be invited to join the Parent Crowd and continue to participate in the design and 
development of the online resource. Participants will be paid $25 for their time and effort on a CT payer card 
which we are already using to pay Parent Crowd participants for their responses to questions.  
 
We request a waiver of the requirement for documentation of full informed consent for focus group 
participation. We completed a waiver for documentation of informed consent, as participants will read and sign 
an abbreviated consent form (attached). Given that there is minimal risk of participation in this focus group we 
did not think the full consent process was necessary. Parents will be provided the abbreviated consent form 
prior to beginning the focus group and completing the demographic form. The consent form document will be 
read to them by the focus group facilitator. They will be encouraged to ask questions about participation in the 
focus group prior to signing the consent form. Once signed, they will be given a copy of the form which 
provides all necessary information about the study procedures, risks, and confidentiality. As mentioned, at the 
end of the focus group, parents will be invited to join the Parent Crowd. Given that all parents provided 
electronic consent to participate in the Parent Crowd (Website Design and Development Phase), all focus 
group participants will be required to provide the same electronic consent. Thus, an abbreviated consent is 
being requested only for focus group participation.  
 
HCP Crowd Input: The Family Advisors will decide which Parent Crowd decisions will be reviewed by the HCP 
Crowds via the Nemours VAC platform. Serving in an advisory capacity, HCPs will review the proposed design 
elements, identify additional areas for consideration, and indicate whether all proposed content is consistent 
with existing scientific evidence. Content areas will be further refined in accord with their recommendations. If 
any new or different information is proposed, parents will be asked to evaluate this information again.  
 
Application Developer Input: Once the initial ideas for website content, structure and function are approved by 
parents, HCPs, and the research team (including the Family Advisors), draft specifications will be reviewed 
with the web development agency, who will develop  a roadmap of design challenges to be distributed to their 
expert application developers in building the resource. Cindy Caldwell of Nemours web development team will 
be continuously involved throughout the design process to ensure that the website platform can be readily 
integrated into the Nemours.org public website. As elements of the website become available from the web 
development agency, parent and HCP stakeholders will review each element again. If parents identify any 
problems with the element, they will be asked to provide further input. This will be reviewed again by HCPs 
who will function in an advisory capacity. This cyclical process will continue for all elements until there is a final 
product that is acceptable to all stakeholders (see Figure 2).  
 
Final Website Design: Once parents, HCPs, and the researchers approve the completed portal, the Nemours 
Web Development Team will incorporate the final platform into a functioning online resource on a Nemours 
website, with access limited to participants randomized to Website. The Parent Crowd will determine how HCP 
input will be integrated into the portal. A last step in constructing the portal will be to populate the compilations 
of behavior management, emotional coping and daily hassle strategies so that the RCT can begin with some 
helpful resources in place. The Parent Crowd and Family Advisors will determine if this content will be parent-
initiated or HCP-initiated strategies or if a hybrid model of incorporation of ideas will be used. These resources 
will give step by step instructions, guidelines for determining appropriate uses of each strategy and 
opportunities for rating of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy by parent-users. The website will 
include a mechanism for expanding these compilations based on user experience over time. Family Advisors 
will beta test the finished platform and any issues will be resolved before the RCT is opened for enrollment.  
4.2. Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT): During Years 3-4, we will conduct an RCT of the website compared 
with Usual Care (UC) in a sample of up to 300 parents of children with T1D (<6 years old). Details follow: 
Participants: The RCT will enroll up to 300 parents of children <6 years old who receive T1D care at any of 
five Nemours Children’s Health System sites in the Delaware Valley and Florida or who are recruited online 

11 
 
using a variety of internet resources from among eligible parents who live elsewhere in the United States. . As 
noted in Facilities and Resources, Nemours YC-T1D population was recently estimated at 213 patients, with a 
slightly increasing trend over the past 4 years. We anticipate that about 25% will be ineligible for one or more 
reasons and that another 10-15% will not be interested in participating in the study. With a 60% recruitment 
rate, we project that parents of up to 120 Nemours patients will enroll and that we will recruit the remaining 
parents via the various online methods, all of which are established, publicly available resources of the 
Diabetes Online Community that are already frequented by parents of this clinical population. Since parents 
will collect and ship dried blood spot samples from children who do not receive T1D care at Nemours, study 
participants must reside in the United States due to logistic and cost considerations associated with 
international shipping of these samples. One parent’s participation is required, but two parents of the same 
child will be encouraged to take part, in which case the mother and father will complete the measures 
separately. We estimate that 75 fathers will enroll, but we will enroll any/all who wish to do so. Minorities and 
those with economic or educational disadvantages may have limited access to social media. If necessary to 
achieve sample composition consisting at least of 28% racial minorities and of 7% Hispanic ethnicity, we will 
continue selective recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities after concluding recruitment of non-Hispanic 
Whites in order to oversample from these groups to ensure that our parent sample is very diverse. There is no 
minimum duration of T1D, nor is there an HbA1C cutoff as the website is intended for all YC-T1D parents.  
Inclusion criteria: Parent or legal guardian of a child with physician diagnosis of T1D; Parent age ≥18 years; 
Child with T1D is currently <6 years old; Parent able to read and comprehend English; Regular access to the 
internet.  
Exclusion criteria: Inability to read/comprehend study questionnaires and decision aids in English; Participating 
parent or the child with T1D lives outside of the United States. 
Recruitment and Informed Consent: The study, including this recruitment plan, will be approved by a Nemours 
IRB before recruitment begins.. All Nemours health care providers who see T1D patients will receive an e-mail 
notice describing this study and our plan to contact all potentially eligible parents of Nemours T1D patients 
about enrollment, All potential Nemours participants that meet enrollment criteria will be identified through 
Nemours EMR and will receive an emailed study flyer approved by Nemours Marketing and Communications 
Department,, followed by phone and/or direct contact in the clinic. Online recruitment of the remaining 
participants will be facilitated by our internet marketing consultant, Ms. Amy Ohmer, who will disseminate word 
of our study and the IRB-approved study flyer using any of several announcements that we have drafted and 
that have been approved by the Nemours IRB. Internet resources will include Facebook groups such as 
Diapers and Diabetes and T1D Mod Squad; websites of diabetes organizations such as Children with 
Diabetes, Children’s Diabetes Foundation, and JDRF; and blogs such as Naturally Sweet Sisters. The RCT 
entails a large group of people using the website together, so we will recruit and enroll all participants over a 1-
2 month interval and begin all of them in the trial as close to concurrently as possible. The Nemours IRB has 
approved our proposal that parental permission and informed consent be obtained electronically since this is 
adequate participant protection and because it can provide valuable experience to justify this same approach 
in a future multi-site clinical trial, as we plan.  
Study design: The design is a 2X3 randomized treatments design with 2 groups (Website and Usual 
Care/UC) and 3 measurements (0, 6, and 12 Months). To enable moderation and mediation analyses, 
randomization will be stratified by site; each site will randomize families to Website and UC in a 2:1 ratio. The 
primary outcome is change in HbA1C over 6 mos. Usual Care at Nemours is designed to conform to the 2017 
ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. All patients will receive the same care offered to patients outside 
of this study. Those randomized to Website will receive all of the elements of Usual Care, supplemented with 
access to the online resource for 1 year after randomization.  
 
Optional Supplemental Methods of Communication with Participating Parents: Participants randomized 
to Website will also be provided with the option to receive website updates (i.e., new articles posted, active 
parent-to-parent forum discussions) via an emailed newsletter, Facebook, and/or Twitter. All three of these 
communication tools will serve the same purpose, which is to encourage participants to visit the website by 
providing updates through resources that many of them already use frequently (i.e., email and social media). 
The Facebook group (The New Normal T1D) and Twitter handle (@thenewnormalt1d) will set up as “private” 
and “protected” such that only select people (i.e., website participants) would be able to access the Facebook 

12 
 
group and see tweets. Users will not be able to post on the Facebook page or tweet to us or each other, thus 
conversations among users (outside of our website) will not be possible. We are working with the Nemours 
Social Media Manager to set these up to meet the appropriate privacy specifications. Participants will be 
required to opt in to receiving the newsletter when they register for the website. Participants will also be to opt 
in to receiving website updates through Facebook and/or Twitter. If they indicate “yes” then they will be added 
to the Facebook page and/or encouraged to follow @thenewnormalt1d on Twitter, respectively. Parents 
randomized to UC will be invited to use the website for 6 months following the first 6 months of the 
randomization phase of the trial. After the trial is completed, every effort will be made to maintain the website 
indefinitely. 
 
Measurement Strategy: The measurement plan aligns directly with the conceptual model. Little is known 
about variables that might influence and be influenced by parent use of the planned website, so the 
measurement plan for this trial is broad in scope. This will magnify participation burden, but the collection of a 
thorough assessment of model constructs will best facilitate planning a future, larger trial, to evaluate the 
model in its entirety and to determine if parent or child characteristics moderate or mediate website benefits. 
Hence, parents will be paid for completing scheduled measures on an escalating basis: Baseline $25; 6 
months: $50 and 12 months: $75. Questionnaires will be completed online using existing REDCap capabilities. 
T1D-specific measures were reviewed by the Family Advisors and adapted for the YC-T1D population. The 
conceptual model constructs associated with each measure are denoted as follows: Social Support (SS), 
Individual Parent Characteristics (IPC), Affective Coping (AC), Behavioral Coping (BC), Individual Child 
Characteristics (ICC), T1D Management Behaviors (DMB), Hypoglycemia (H), Glycated hemoglobin (A1C), 
and Quality of Life (QOL). Certain measures, as described in the Human Subjects section, yield clinical cutoff 
scores. Parents or children whose scores on those measures exceed a clinical cutoff will be contacted 
promptly and assisted in arranging an appointment with a qualified mental health professional in their areas. 
The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 are commercially available. Per 
communication with the publishers (PAR and Pearson, respectively; see Appendix A), we have received 
approval pending completion of license/fee agreements to administer these measures online via REDCap. 
 
Measures obtained at Baseline only: 
Demographic information (IPC and ICC): The same demographic form used in the Website Design and 
Development Phase will be collected from RCT participants at baseline.  
Perceived spousal support (SS): The Family Management Measure148 assesses how families manage caring 
for children with chronic conditions like T1D. We will use the 8-item Parental Mutuality scale that measures 
parents’ perceptions of support, shared views, and satisfaction with how the partners work together to manage 
the child’s condition. The scale will be completed only by parents living with adult partners. The scale has 
adequate internal consistency (α=0.73 for mothers, α=0.77 for fathers), inter-rater reliability (r=0.44), and test-
retest reliability (r=.71), and correlations in the expected direction with measures of related constructs. 
Eyberg Childhood Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (ICC): The ECBI161 is a widely used parent-report measure of 
problematic behaviors of children > 2 years old. Parents rate the frequency of 36 child behaviors on a Likert 
scale, that ranges from 1 (never) to 7 (always), and to then indicate whether they consider each behavior to be 
a problem (yes/no). The ECBI has strong reliability and validity.162  The ECBI will be administered at Baseline 
only to provide a comparator for evaluation of the convergent validity of the Preschool Diabetes behavior 
Checklist described below. 
Diabetes-specific routines (BC): The Pediatric Diabetes Routines Questionnaire (PDRQ)37 measures the 
frequency of routines formed around managing diabetes in the family. Item frequency is measured on a 5-point 
Likert scale ranging from 0 “never” to 4 “everyday” and “not applicable.” Internal consistency (α=0.88) and test-
retest reliability (r=0.81) estimates were strong. Construct validity was supported through relations with general 
child routines, family rituals, diabetes treatment adherence, and diabetes-specific family support. Completion of 
the PDRQ at the Baseline evaluation only will permit evaluation of the scale’s predictive validity. 
 
Measures obtained at Baseline, 6 months, and 12 months: 
Parent self-efficacy (IPC): The Parental Self-Efficacy Scale for Diabetes Management (PSESDM)153 was 
adapted from a prior measure for adult patients to measure parental self-efficacy for diabetes management of 
young children. The 8-item scale has adequate internal consistency (α=0.84). Criterion validity was 
established. Higher scores were associated with more favorable HbA1C and quality of life in children.  

13 
 
Parent general psychological distress (IPC): The Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI-18)154-155 is a widely used 
self-report screening measure that yields norm-referenced scores for Somatization, Depression, Anxiety and a 
Global Severity Index. Respondents rate their current status in terms of 18 physical and emotional complaints; 
on a scale from 0 (not at all) through 4 (very much). The BSI-18 has strong reliability and validity. 154-155 
Parent-Preschool Diabetes Adjustment Scale (PP-DAS): This is a 36-item measure constructed for this study 
in collaboration with our Parent Crowd and Family Advisors. The scale was designed as an effort to capture 
parents’ status relative to the key domains of psychological adjustment revealed in our earlier qualitative study.  
Benefit Finding Scale: This brief 16-item scale has been validated in several prior studies 156-157 and will be 
used in this study to evaluate changes in parents’ propensity to identify beneficial effects of their child’s T1D on 
themselves, their children and their family relationships. Scale reliability has been consistently satisfactory to 
excellent in prior studies. 
Parent fear of hypoglycemia (AC and BC): The 26-item Hypoglycemic Fear Survey – Parents of Young 
Children (HFS-PYC) measures parents’ fear about their children’s hypoglycemia.158-160 It yields two subscales, 
assessing parents’ behaviors related to preventing hypoglycemia and their worry that their child may 
experience hypoglycemia. Parents rate how often each item is true for them on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never 
to 5=very often). The HFS-PYC has good internal consistency (α’s=0.86, 0.62, and 0.89) and test-retest 
reliability (r’s=0.91, 0.73, and 0.91) for the Total, Behavior, and Worry Scores, respectively.  
Diabetes-specific child behavior problems (BC and ICC): The Preschool Diabetes Behavior Checklist (PDBC) 
was constructed for this study with extensive input from family advisors and the Parent Crowd. The scale 
measures the frequency of child behavior problems in children with T1D ages 2 to 6 years. The 32 items 
measure the child’s behavior in the areas of general adjustment to T1D, glucose testing, dietary intake, and 
insulin delivery.  
Diabetes Self-Management (DMB): The Diabetes Self Management Profile, Self-Report, Parent Form (DSMP-
SR) 163 was derived from the previously validated DSMP structured interview. The 24-item scale quantifies 
treatment adherence. Mean + SD DSMP total scores (maximum possible = 84) were 54.7 + 12.6 for 145 
parents. Internal consistency was α=0.80 and correlation with HbA1C was r=0.46. 
Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1C): For parents of children who receive T1D care at a Nemours facility, the child’s 
most recent HbA1C, an index of average glycemia over the prior 2-3 months, will be obtained from the 
electronic medical record for the prior 12 months and for each T1D encounter occurring during the child’s study 
enrollment. For participants enrolling online from non-Nemours centers, glycemic control will be measured via 
HbA1c collected using HemaSpot SE Blood Spot Collection Devices (dried blood spots [DBS]) obtained at 0, 6 
and 12 months and analyzed at CoreMedica Laboratories in Lee's Summit, MO. Correlations between DBS 
and standardized venous HbA1c are high and sensitivity and specificity for DBS for HbA1c are excellent165,166. 
Higher values indicate higher average blood glucose over the prior 2-3 months. 
 
Measures obtained at 6 months and 12 months only: 
Website utilization: For each website user, we will track time-stamped logins and logouts, duration of login 
periods, hits on and duration of activity within specific website elements, etc. to provide careful tracking of 
extent and type of website use by each registered parent. 
Qualitative interview: Parents will complete a qualitative interview at 3 months, 6 months and post-RCT, or 
earlier if the parent withdraws. The interview will obtain parents’ perspectives of the website, suggested 
changes to content and design, advantages and disadvantages, reasons for low utilization, etc. We expect that 
this interview will yield relatively brief and focused responses from parents. Trained content analysts will 
employ a descriptive level of analysis, using a well-accepted method of content analysis via HyperRESEARCH 
software to extract the primary themes that emerge during these interviews. Analysts will be trained to a 
criterion of 90% inter-rater reliability. Dr. Aroian will direct incorporation of these themes into the website.  
 
Table 1. Measurement schedule for the randomized controlled trial phase of the proposed work. 
 
Measure 
Baseline 
6 
Months 
12 
Months 
Demographic Information 
● 
 
 
HbA1C 
● 
● 
● 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

14 
 
Family Management Measure: Parent Mutuality Scale 
● 
 
 
Parenting Self-Efficacy Scale for Diabetes Management 
● 
● 
● 
Brief Symptom Inventory-18 
● 
● 
● 
Parent-Preschooler Diabetes Adjustment Scale 
● 
● 
● 
Benefit Finding Scale 
● 
● 
● 
Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Parents of Young Children version 
● 
● 
● 
Preschool Diabetes Behavior Checklist-Revised 
● 
● 
● 
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory 
● 
 
 
Diabetes Self-Management Profile-Self Report Form 
● 
● 
● 
Pediatric Diabetes Routines Questionnaire 
● 
 
 
Mid-RCT and Post-RCT Qualitative interview (Website group @ 3, 6 &12 months) 
           ●      ● 
● 
 
RCT Analytic Plans: The RCT analysis plan aligns with the focus of PA-DK-14-022, i.e., to develop an 
intervention that is ready for testing in a rigorous, multisite RCT. Because this is conceived as a preliminary 
RCT, we have put forth hypotheses below, but the plan emphasizes deriving effect size estimates for powering 
future trials on the main efficacy endpoints and analysis of website use and benefit. The planned RCT sample 
size of 150 families (2:1 for Website: UC) will suffice to estimate efficacy and to derive effect size estimates for 
use in a future trial with formal hypothesis testing. 
 
Fundamentals: The Full Analysis Set will include parents who contribute data at either 6 or 12 mos.167-169 The 
Completer Analysis set will include those who provide data at 0, 6 and 12 mos.. 167169 Efficacy analyses will be 
done on both sets.167-169 The statistician will make appropriate analytic adjustments for instances in which data 
are determined to be Missing at Random and Missing Completely at Random. 167-169 In addition to multiple 
imputation, sensitivity analyses will be performed for assessing the robustness of the estimation in case of 
Missing Not At Random. Descriptive statistics will be calculated for all measures and distributions of obtained 
data will be summarized graphically in aggregate and by group. Assumptions for all proposed models will be 
checked before statistical analyses. 167-171 Appropriate transformations or non-parametric methods will be used 
in cases of violated model assumptions. 167-171 Sensitivity analyses will be conducted when assumptions 
underlying specific analyses cannot be verified using actual study data. Psychometric properties of all 
questionnaires will be calculated based on this sample’s results, including internal consistency, 6 and 12-
month test-retest reliability and predictive validity,  All tests will be performed against a two-sided alternative at 
the α= 0.05 significance level and a 95% confidence interval or a p-value will be provided for inferential 
purposes.  All analyses will be performed using the most recent version of the SAS statistical software 
package.172 One way ANOVA of continuous baseline variables and a Fisher exact test/chi-square test/CMH 
test for categorical variables will be used to compare Website and UC at baseline. 167-171 Analyses of primary 
and secondary end points will be adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics.   
 
Primary Analyses: Linear mixed effects modeling will be the primary analytic approach. 172-177 Holmbeck’s 178 
methods will be used to evaluate moderation and mediation of treatment effects. Candidate moderators will 
include demographic variables and scores for each measure obtained at baseline. Candidate mediators will 
include scores on each questionnaire obtained at 0, 6 and 12 months. With three measurement points, these 
methods will be capable of detecting linear and quadratic longitudinal associations among study variables. We 
will test these primary hypotheses: 
H1: Compared to UC participants, Website participants will have significantly more favorable status at 6 and 12 
months on HbA1C (primary outcome) and secondary outcomesconsisting of change in questionnaire scores at 
follow-up visits. 
H2: Website treatment effects will be moderated by parental socioeconomic status and questionnaire scores at 
baseline visits 
H3: Website treatment effects will be mediated by changes in change in questionnaire scores at follow-up 
visits. 
H4: Among Website participants, the above treatment effects will be mediated by Website utilization (More 
utilization predictive of more beneficial effects).  
 
Perhaps more importantly, this feasibility trial will yield rich data that will be used for estimation of effect sizes 
and sample size requirements for a future multi-center trial,179-180 and will enhance  that application by: 

15 
 
1. Estimating Website-UC effect sizes (Cohen’s d index)179-181 at 6 and 12 months on the primary and 
secondary outcome variables. 
2. Exploring utilization of the online resource, by examining demographic variables and individual 
characteristics of parents and children as moderators of Website use, and change in time-varying variables 
as mediators of change in Website use over 6 and 12 mo.173-178 
3. Use of Structural Equation Modeling to evaluate and refine the conceptual model put forth earlier.181 
4. Analyzing Mid-RCT and Post-RCT qualitative interviews of participants will provide additional information to 
drive refinements in the WEBSITE for future trials that could enhance WEBSITE use and benefit. 
 
Limitations:  The innovations in this application leave some important unknowns in that we have put forth only 
a tentative framework for the planned online resource. The final structure, content, functions and governance 
of the website will be specified in detail and then evaluated during the grant period. Major strengths lie in the 
collective experience of the research team and stakeholders, capitalizing on the “wisdom of the crowd” 
inherent in our stakeholder-driven strategy, and the careful constitution of three crowds to ensure balance 
between the central “parents as experts” approach with appropriate medical, crowdsourcing and web 
development technical expertise. A systematic process has been put forth for iterative design and development 
of the online resource, a process that we believe will result in an exceptional resource for these families.  
Another limitation is that some RCT parents may use the website sparingly or not at all. The study will yield 
extensive information about influences on WE use and we will use parents’ post-RCT perspectives to guide 
further portal refinements. We will also emphasize usability issues in the design and development phase. 
We are asking for reviewers’ confidence in our premise that the collective parent and HCP expertise that we 
will assemble and utilize, the sound conceptual framework, the inclusion of technical experts in crowdsourcing, 
application development, social media and qualitative research, and the carefully designed randomized 
controlled trial, measurement plan and analysis plan will yield a readily disseminable intervention that could 
eventually be tested economically with a very large and diverse sample of parents. We believe that the 
resource we propose to develop can result in modest improvements in care and outcomes for a very large 
number of young children with T1D, thus achieving major public health impact with a rather small investment. 
 
 

16 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 
1. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyurus E, Green A, Soltesz G, Group ES. Incidence trends for childhood 
type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989-2003 and predicted new cases 2005-20: a multicentre prospective 
registration study. Lancet. 2009;373(9680):2027-2033. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60568-7 
 
2. Harjutsalo V, Sjoberg L, Tuomilehto J. Time trends in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in Finnish children: a 
cohort study. Lancet. 2008;371(9626)1777-1782. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60765-5. 
 
3. Vehik K, Hamman RF, Lezotte D, et al. Increasing incidence of type 1 diabetes in 0-17-year-old Colorado 
youth. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:503-509. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1837, 
 
4. Dabelea D. The accelerating epidemic of childhood diabetes. Lancet. 2009;373:1999-2000. 
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60874-6. 
 
5. Bell RA, Mayer-Davis EJ, Beyer JW, et al. Diabetes in non-Hispanic white youth: Prevalence, incidence, 
and clinical characteristics: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(Suppl. 
2):S102-S11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60568-7. 
 
6. Liese AD, D'Agostino RB Jr, Hamman RF, et al. The burden of diabetes mellitus among US youth: 
prevalence estimates from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1510-8. 
 
7. Quinn M, Fleischman A, Rosner B, Nigrin DJ, Wolfsdorf JI. Characteristics at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes 
in children younger than 6 years. J Pediatr. 2006;148(3):366-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.10.029. 
 
8. Wood JR, Miller KM, Maahs DM, et al. Most youth with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic 
Registry do not meet American Diabetes Association or International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent 
Diabetes clinical guidelines. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):2035-7. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1959. 
 
9. Petitti DB, Klingensmith G, Bell R, et al. Glycemic control in youth with diabetes: the SEARCH for diabetes 
in youth study. J Pediatr. 2009;155:668-672. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.05.025. 
 
10. Silverstein JH, Klingensmith G, Copeland K, et al. Care of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. 
Diabetes Care. 2005;28:184-212. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.1.186 
 
11. Shafiee G, Mohajeri-Tehrani M, Pajouhi M, Larijani B. The importance of hypoglycemia in diabetic 
      patients. Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders. 2012;11(17). doi: 10.1186/2251-6581-11-17. 
 
12. Golden MP, Russell BP, Ingersoll GM, Gray DL, Hummer KM. Management of diabetes mellitus in children 
younger than 5 years of age. Am J Dis Child. 1985;139:448-52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 
3885716. Accessed March 9, 2015.  
 
13. Ceriello A. The emerging challenge in diabetes: the "metabolic memory". Vascul Pharmacol, 2012;57(5-
6):133-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2012.05.005.  
 
14. Barker JM, Goehrig SH, Barriga K, et al. Clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 
through intensive screening and follow-up. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(6):1399-404. doi: 
10.2337/diacare.27.6.1399 
 
15. Goonetilleke R, Pollitzer M, Mann N. Insulin for toddlers with difficult diabetes. Diabetes Care. 
      2004;27(6):1505. 
 
16. Gaudieri PA, Chen R, Greer TF, Holmes CS. Cognitive function in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 
      Care. 2008;31(9):1892-7. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2132. 
 
 

17 
 
17. Northam EA, Anderson PJ, Werther GA, Warne GL, Adler RG, Andrewes D. Neuropsychological 
      complications of IDDM in children 2 years after disease onset. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(3):379-84. 
 
18. Rovet J, Alvarez M. Attentional functioning in children and adolescents with IDDM. Diab Care. 
      1997;20:803-10. 
 
19. Holmes C, Cant CM, Fox, MA, Lampert NL, Greer T. Disease and demographic risk factors for disrupted 
cognitive functioning in children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). School Psych Rev. 
1999;28:215-227. 
 
20. Perantie DC, Lim A, Wu J, et al. Effects of prior hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia on cognition in children 
with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9(2):87-95. 
 
21. Hershey T, Perantie DC, Warren SL, Zimmerman EC, Sadler M, White NH. Frequency and timing of 
severe hypoglycemia affects spatial memory in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(10): 
2372-7. 
 
22. Aye T, Barnea-Goraly N, Ambler C, et al. White matter structural differences in young children with type 1 
diabetes: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(11):2167-73.  
 
23. Ferguson S, Blane A, Wardlaw J, et al. Influence of an early-onset age of type 1 diabetes on cerebral 
structure and cognitive function. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(6):1431-1437. 
 
24. Hannonen R, Komulainen J, Riikonen R, et al. Academic skills in children with early-onset type 1 
diabetes: The effects of diabetes-related risk factors. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(5):457-463. 
 
25. Svensson M, Eriksson J, Dahlquist G. Early glycemic control, age at onset, and development of 
microvascular complications in childhood-onset type 1 diabetes: A population-based study in northern 
Sweden. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(4):955-962. 
 
26. Desrocher M, Rovet J. Neurocognitive correlates of type 1 diabetes mellitus in childhood. Child 
Neuropsychol. 2004;10(1):36-52. 
 
27. Bade-White PA, Obrzut JE. The neurocognitive effects of type 1 diabetes mellitus in children and young 
      adults with and without hypoglycemia. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2009;21:425-440. doi: 10.1007/s10882-009151y  
 
28. Nilsson A, Radeborg K, Bjorck I. Effects on cognitive performance of modulating the postprandial blood 
      glucose profile at breakfast. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66(9):1039-1043. 2278102 
 
29. Wysocki T, Harris MA, Mauras N, Fox L, Taylor A, Jackson SC, White NH. Absence of adverse effects of 
      severe hypoglycemia on cognitive function in school-aged children with diabetes over 18 months. 
      Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1100-1105.  
 
30. Rutledge KS, Chase HP, Klingensmith GJ, Walravens PA, Slover RH, Garg SK. Effectiveness of 
postprandial Humalog in toddlers with diabetes. Pediatr. 1997;100(6):968-72 
 
31. Jones T, Porter P, Sherwin RS, et al. Decreased epinephrine responses to hypoglycemia during sleep. The 
New Engl J Med. 1998;338:1657-1662.  
 
32. Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. Impaired overnight counterregulatory 
hormone responses to spontaneous hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 
2007;8:199-205. 
 

18 
 
33. Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. Blunted counterregulatory hormone 
responses to hypoglycemia in young children and adolescents with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. 
Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):1954-1959.  
 
34. Kaufman FR, Austin J, Neinstein A, et al. Nocturnal hypoglycemia detected with the continuous glucose 
monitoring system in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr. 2002;141:625-630.  
 
35. Perfect MM, Patel PG, Scott RE, et al. Sleep, glucose, and functioning in youth with type 1 diabetes. 
Sleep. 2012;35:81-88. 
 
36. Monaghan MC, Herbert LJ, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Sleep behaviors and parent functioning in young 
children with type 1 diabetes. Child Health Care. 2012;41(246-159). 
 
37. Pierce JS, Jordan SS. Development and evaluation of the Pediatric Diabetes Routines Questionnaire. 
Child Health Care. 2012;41:56–77 
 
38. Donga E, Van Dijk M, Van Dijk JG, et al. Partial sleep restriction decreases insulin sensitivity in type 1 
diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1573-1577. 
 
39. Meltzer LJ, Moore M. Sleep disruptions in parents of children and adolescents with chronic illnesses: 
prevalence, causes, and consequences. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:279-291. 
 
40. Powers SW, Byars KC, Mitchell MJ, Patton SR, Standiford D, Dolan LM. Parent report of mealtime 
behavior and parenting stress in young children with type 1 diabetes and in healthy control subjects. 
Diabetes Care. 2002;25(2):313-8. 
 
41. Patton SR, Williams LB, Dolan LM, Chen M, Powers SW. Feeding problems reported by parents of young 
children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy and their associations with children's glycemic 
control. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(7): p. 455-60. 
 
42. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Chen M, Powers SW. Dietary adherence and mealtime behaviors in young children 
with type 1 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(2): p. 258-62. 
 
43. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Powers SW. Parent report of mealtime behaviors in young children with 
type 1 diabetes mellitus: implications for better assessment of dietary adherence problems in the clinic. 
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2006;27(3): p. 202-8. 
 
44. Quick V, Lipsky L, Laffel L, Mehta S, Quinn H, Nansel TR. Relationships of neophobia and pickiness 
with dietary variety, dietary quality and diabetes management adherence in youth with type 1 diabetes. 
Eur J Clin Nut. 2014;68(1):131-136. 
 
45. Wilson DM, Buckingham BA, Kunselman EL, Sullivan MM, Paguntalan HU, Gitelman SE. A two-center 
randomized controlled feasibility trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with diabetes. Diabetes 
Care. 2005;28(1):15-19. 
 
46. DiMeglio LA, Pottorff TM, Boyd SR, France L, Fineberg N, Eugster EA. A randomized, controlled study 
of insulin pump therapy in diabetic preschoolers. J Pediatr. 2004;145(3):380-384. 
 
47. Weinzimer SA, Ahern JH, Doyle EA, et al. Persistence of benefits of  continuous subcutaneous insulin 
infusion in very young children with type 1diabetes: a follow-up report. Pediatr. 2004;114(6):1601-5. 
 
48. Phillip M, Battelino T, Rodriguez H, Danne T, Kaufman F. Use of insulin pump therapy in the pediatric 
age-group: consensus statement from the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the Lawson 
      Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent 
      Diabetes, endorsed by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study 

19 
 
      of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1653-62. 
 
49. Litton J, Rice A, Friedman N, Oden J, Lee MM, Freemark M. Insulin pump therapy in toddlers and      
preschool children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr. 2002;141(4):490-5. 
 
50. Shehadeh N, Battelino T, Galatzer A, et al. Insulin pump therapy for 1-6 year old children with type 1 
diabetes. Isr Med Assoc J. 2004;6(5):284-6. 
 
51. Fox LA, Buckloh LM, Smith SD, Wysocki T, Mauras N. A randomized controlled trial of insulin pump 
therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(6):1277-81. 
 
52. Nabhan ZM, Kreher NC, Greene DM, Eugster EA, Kronenberger W, DiMeglio LA. A randomized        
prospective study of insulin pump vs. insulin injection therapy in very youngchildren with type 1 diabetes:      
12-month glycemic, BMI, and neurocognitive outcomes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(3):202-8. 
 
53. Blackman SM, Raghinaru D, Adi S, et al. Insulin pump use in young children in the T1D Exchange clinic 
registry is associated with lower hemoglobin A1c levels than injection therapy. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014; 
15(8):564-72. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12121 
 
54. Buckingham B, Beck RW, Tamborlane WV, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 
diabetes. J Pediatr. 2007;151(4):388-393, 393 e381-382. 
 
55. Beck RW, Buckingham B, Miller K, et al. Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous 
glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):1947-1953. 
 
56. Tsalikian E, Fox L, Weinzimer S, et al. Feasibility of prolonged continuous glucose monitoring in 
toddlers with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;13(4):301-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2011.00837.x 
 
57. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW. Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Lancet. 
2009;373(9677):1744-1746. 
 
58. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of 
type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(14):1464-1476. 
 
59. Mauras N, Beck R, Xing D, et al. A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time 
continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to <10 
years. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(2):204-10.  
 
60. Buckingham B, Beck RW, Tamborlane WV, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 
diabetes. J Pediatr. 2007;151(4):388-393, 393 e381-382. 
 
61. Beck RW, Buckingham B, Miller K, et al. Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous 
glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):1947-1953. 
 
62. Tansey M, Weinzimer S, Beck R, et al. Extended 6-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial to assess 
the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in 
young children aged 4 to <10 years. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(5):e63.  
 
63. Slover RH, Welsh JB, Criego A, et al. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in children and 
adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the STAR 3 study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13(1):6-11 
 
64. Weinzimer SA, Steil GM, Swan KL, Dziura J, Kurtz N, Tamborlane WV. Fully automated closed-loop insulin 
delivery versus semiautomated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using an artificial 
pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(5):934-9. 
 

20 
 
65. Kovatchev BP, Renard E, Cobelli C, et al. Feasibility of outpatient fully integrated closed-loop control: first 
studies of wearable artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):1851-8.  
 
66. Dauber A, Corcia L, Safer J, Agus MS, Einis S, Steil GM. Closed-loop insulin therapy improves glycemic  
control in children aged <7 years: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(2):222-7.  
 
67. Hovorka R, Allen JM, Elleri D, et al. Manual closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with 
type 1 diabetes: a phase 2 randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9716):743-51. 
 
68. Elleri D, Allen JM, Nodale M, et al. Automated overnight closed-loop glucose control in young children with 
type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(4):419-24. 
 
69. Buckingham B, Chase HP, Dassau E, et al. Prevention of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Using Predictive Alarm 
Algorithms and Insulin Pump Suspension. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(5):1013-7.  
 
70. Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Allen JM, et al. Closing the Loop Overnight at Home Setting: Psychosocial Impact 
for Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and their Parents. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 
2014;2(1):e000025. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2014-000025 
 
71. Diabetes Research in Children Network (T. Wysocki lead author). Psychological aspects of continuous  
glucose monitoring in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7: 32-38. 
 
72. Anderson BJ. Parenting styles and parenting practices in pediatric diabetes. Diabetes Care. 
2011;34:1885-6. doi: 10.2337/dc11-1028. 
 
73. Hauenstein EJ, Marvin RS, Snyder AL, Clarke WL. Stress in parents of children with diabetes mellitus. 
Diabetes Care. 1989;12:18-23. doi: 10.2337/diacare.12.1.18. 
 
74. Sullivan-Bolyai S, Deatrick J, Gruppuso P, Tamborlane W, Grey M. Constant vigilance: mothers' work      
parenting young children with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Nurs. 2003;18(1):21-9. 
 
75. Mitchell SJ, Hilliard ME, Mednick L, Henderson C, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Stress among fathers of young        
children with type 1 diabetes. Fam Syst Health. 2009;27(4):314-24.  
 
76. Streisand R, Swift E, Wickmark T, Chen R, Holmes CS. Pediatric parenting stress among parents of     
children with type 1 diabetes: the role of self-efficacy, responsibility, and fear. J. Pediatr Psychol.  
2005;30(6):513-21. 
 
77. Haugstvedt A, Wentzel-Larsen T, Rokne B, Graue M. Perceived family burden and emotional distress: 
similarities and differences between mothers and fathers of children with type 1 diabetes in a 
population-based study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12(2):107-14 
 
78. Sullivan-Bolyai S, Deatrick J, Gruppuso P, Tamborlane W, Grey M. Mothers' experiences raising young 
children with type 1 diabetes. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2002;7(3):93-103 
 
79. Jaser S, Whittemore R, Ambrosino JM, Lindemann E, Grey M. Coping and psychosocial adjustment in     
mothers of young children with type 1 diabetes. Child Health Care. 2009;38(2):91-106.  
 
80. Vandagriff JL, Marrero DG, Ingersoll GM, Fineberg NS. Parents of children with diabetes: What are they 
worried about? Diabetes Educator. 1992;18(4):299-302. 
 
81. Sullivan-Bolyai S, Rosenberg R, Bayard M. Fathers' reflections on parenting young children with type 1 
diabetes. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2006;31(1):24-31. 
 
82. Whittemore R, Jaser S, Chao A, Jang M, Grey M. Psychological experience of parents of children with type     

21 
 
1 diabetes: a systematic mixed-studies review. Diabetes Educator. 2012;38(4):562-79. PMCID: 3401246. 
 
83.  Sweenie R, Mackey ER, Streisand R. Parent-child relationships in type 1 diabetes: Associations among  
child behavior, parenting behavior, and pediatric parenting stress. Fam Syst Health. 2013 ;32(1):31-42. doi: 
10.1037/fsh0000001 
 
84. Streisand R, Mackey ER, Herge W. Associations of parent coping, stress, and well-being in mothers of 
children with diabetes: examination of data from a national sample. Matern Child Health J. 2010;14(4):612-
617. 
 
85. Lowes L, Gregory JW, Lyne P. Newly diagnosed childhood diabetes: a psychosocial transition for 
parents? J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(3):253-61 
 
86. Horsch A, McManus F, Kennedy P, Edge J. Anxiety, depressive, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in 
mothers of children with type 1 diabetes. J.Trauma Stress. 2007;20(5):881-91 
 
87. Streisand R, Mackey ER, Elliot BM, et al. Parental anxiety and depression associated with caring for a 
child newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: opportunities for education and counseling. Patient Educ 
Couns. 2008;73:333-338. 
 
88. Hilliard ME, Monaghan M, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Parent stress and child behaviour among young 
children with type 1 diabetes. Child: Care, Health and Dev. 2011;37(2):224-232. 
 
89. Wysocki T, Huxtable K, Linscheid TR, Wayne W. Adjustment to diabetes mellitus in preschoolers and their 
mothers. Diabetes Care. 1989;12:524-529. 
 
90. Scott LK. Developmental mastery of diabetes-related tasks in children. Nurs Clin N Am. 2013;48:329-42. 
doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2013.01.015. 
 
91. Chemtob CM, Hochhauser CJ, Shemesh E, Schmeidler J, Rapaport R. Does poor early metabolic control 
predict subsequent poor control in young children with type 1 diabetes: an exploratory study. J Diabetes. 
2011;3(2):153-7. 
 
92. Schwartz DD, Cline VD, Hansen JA, Axelrad ME, Anderson BJ. Early risk factors for nonadherence in 
pediatric type 1 diabetes: A review of the recent literature. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2010;6:167-83. 
 
93. Antal H, Wysocki T, Canas JA, Taylor A, Edney-White A.  Parent report and direct observation of injection-
related coping behaviors in youth with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36(3):318-28. doi: 
10.1093/jpepsy/jsq082. 
 
94. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Henry R, Powers SW. Fear of hypoglycemia in parents of young children with 
type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2008;15(3):252-9.  
 
95. Clarke WL, Gonder-Frederick A, Snyder AL, Cox DJ. Maternal fear of hypoglycemia in their children 
with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 1998;11 Suppl 1:189-94 
 
96. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Smith LB, Thomas IH, Powers SW. Pediatric parenting stress and its relation to 
depressive symptoms and fear of hypoglycemia in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes 
      mellitus. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2011;18(4):345-352. 
 
97. McDonnell CM, Northam EA, Donath SM, Werther GA, Cameron FJ. Hyperglycemia and externalizing 
behavior in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(9):2211-5.  
 
98. Barnard K, Thomas S, Royle P, Noyes K, Waugh N. Fear of hypoglycaemia in parents of young 

22 
 
children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-
50. 
 
99. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Henry R, Powers SW. Parental fear of hypoglycemia: young children treated with 
continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Pediatr Diabetes. 2007;8(6):362-8. 
 
100. Garrison WT, Biggs D, Williams K. Temperament characteristics and clinical outcomes in young children 
with diabetes mellitus. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 1990;31(7):1079-88.  
 
101. Rovet JF, Ehrlich RM. Effect of temperament on metabolic control in children with diabetes mellitus. 
Diabetes Care. 1988;11(1):77-82.  
 
102. Weissberg-Benchell J, Glasgow A. The role of temperament in children with insulin-dependent diabetes 
mellitus. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22(6):795-809. 
 
103. Haugstvedt A, Wentzel-Larsen T, Graue M, Sovik O, Rokne B. Fear of hypoglycaemia in mothers and 
fathers of children with Type 1 diabetes is associated with poor glycaemic control and parental emotional 
distress: a population-based study. Diabet Med. 2010;27(1):72-8 
 
104. Marrero DG, Guare JC, Vandagriff JL, Fineberg NS. Fear of hypoglycemia in the parents of children and 
adolescents with diabetes: maladaptive or healthy response? Diabetes Educ. 1997;23(3):281-6 
 
105. Freckleton E, Sharpe L, Mullan B. The relationship between maternal fear of hypoglycaemia and 
adherence in children with type 1diabetes. Int J Behav Med. 2014;21(5):804-10. doi: 10.1007/s12529-
013-9360-8. 
 
106. Stallwood L. Relationship between caregiver knowledge and socioeconomic factors on glycemic 
outcomes of young children with diabetes. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2006;11(3):158-65. 
 
107. Lindstrom C, Aman J, Norberg AL. Parental burnout in relation to sociodemographic, psychosocial and 
personality factors as well as disease duration and glycaemic control in children with Type 1 diabetes 
mellitus. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100(7):1011-7 
 
108. Stallwood L. Influence of caregiver stress and coping on glycemic control of young children with diabetes. 
J Pediatr Health Care. 2005;19(5):293-300 
 
109. Sundberg F, Augustsson M, Forsander G, Cederholm U, Axelsen M. Children under the age of seven 
with diabetes are increasing their cardiovascular risk by their food choices. Acta Paediatrica. 
2014;103(4):404-10. doi: 10.1111/apa.12533 
 
110. Wysocki T, Harris MA, Buckloh LM, et al. Effects of behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes on 
adolescents' family relationships, treatment adherence and metabolic control. J Pediatr Psychol. 
2006;31(9):928-38. 
 
111. Wysocki T, Harris MA, Buckloh LM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of Behavioral Family Systems 
Therapy for Diabetes: Maintenance of effects on  diabetes outcomes in adolescents. Diabetes Care. 
2007;30(3):555-60. 
 
112. Ellis DA, Templin T, Naar-King S, et a. Multisystemic therapy for adolescents with poorly controlled type 
1diabetes: Stability of treatment effects in a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 
2007;75(1):168-74 
 
113. Grey M, Jaser SS, Whittemore R, Jeon S, Lindemann E. Coping skills training for parents of children with 
type 1 diabetes: 12 month outcomes. Nurs Res. 201;60(3):173-81. doi: 
10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182159c8f. 

23 
 
114. Monaghan M, Hilliard ME, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Supporting parents of very young children with type 1 
diabetes: results from a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):271-4. doi: 
10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.007. 
 
115. Mulvaney SA, Anders S, Smith AK, Pittel EJ, Johnson KB. A pilot test of a tailored mobile and web-based 
diabetes messaging system for adolescents. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(2):115-8. doi: 
10.1258/jtt.2011.111006. 
 
116. Nansel TR, Anderson BJ, Laffel LM, et al. A multisite trial of a clinic-integrated intervention for promoting 
family management of pediatric type 1 diabetes: feasibility and design. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(2):105-
115. 
 
117. Sullivan-Bolyai S, Bova C, Leung K, Trudeau A, Lee M, Gruppuso P. Social support to empower parents 
(STEP): An intervention for parents of young children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 
Educr. 2010;36:88-97. doi: 10.1177/0145721709352384. 
 
118. Merkel RM & Wright t. Parental self-efficacy and online support among parents of children diagnosed with 
type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Nurs. 2012;38(6):303-8; quiz 309.  
 
119. Delamater AM, Bubb J, Davis SG, et al. Randomized prospective study of self-management training with 
newly diagnosed diabetic children. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(5):492-8. 
 
120. Lehmkuhl HD, Storch EA, Cammarata C, et al. Telehealth behavior therapy for the management of type 1 
diabetes in adolescents. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(1): 199-208. 
 
121. Hanauer DA, Wentzell K, Laffel N, Laffel LM. Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System 
(CARDS): e-mail and SMS cell phone text messaging reminders to support diabetes management. 
Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009;11(2): 99-106. doi: 10.1089/dia.2008.0022. 
 
122. Whittemore R, Jaser SS, Jeon S, et al. An internet coping skills training program for youth with type 1 
diabetes: six month outcomes. Nurs Res. 2012;61(6):395-404. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182690a29. 
 
123. Alfano CA & Beidel DC. Comprehensive evidence-based interventions for children and adolescents. New 
York, NY: Wiley and Sons; 2014. 
 
124. Triple P Positive Parenting Program. (Accessed 2/8/15). http://www.triplep.net/glo-en/the-triple-p-system-
at-work/evidence-based/  
 
125. Uchino, BN. Social Support and Physical Health: Understanding the Health Consequences of  
Relationships (Current Perspectives in Psychology Series). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press; 
2004. 
 
126. Gallant MP. The Influence of Social Support on Chronic Illness Self-Management: A Review and 
Directions for Research. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(2):170-95. 
 
127. Uchino, BN. Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A lifespan perspective  
with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspect on Psychol Sci. 2009;4(3) 
236-55. 
 
128. Uchino BN, Bowen K, Carlisle M, Birmingham W. Psychological pathways linking social support to health 
outcomes: A visit with the ghosts of research, past, present and future. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(7)949-57. 
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.023.  
 
129. DiMatteo, MR. Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: A meta-analysis. Health    
Psychol. 2002;23(2):207-18. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.3.207. 

24 
 
 
130. Wysocki T, Greco P. Social support and diabetes management in childhood and adolescence:  Influence 
of parents and friends. Curr Diab Rep. 2006;6(2):117-22. 
 
131. Lewandowski A & Drotar D. The relationship between parent-reported social support and adherence to 
medical treatment in families of adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(4): 427-36. 
doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl037 
 
132. Carcone AI, Ellis DA, Weisz A, & Naar-King S. Social support for diabetes illness management: 
Supporting adolescents and caregivers. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32(8):581-90. doi: 
10.1097/DBP.0b013e31822c1a27. 
 
133. Hansen JA, Weissbrod C, Schwartz DD, & Taylor WP. Paternal involvement in pediatric type 1 diabetes: 
Fathers’ and mothers’ psychological functioning and disease management. Fam Syst Health. 
2012;30(1):47-59. doi: 10.1037/a0027519.  
 
134. Monaghan M, Sanders RE, Kelly KP, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Using qualitative methods to guide clinical 
trial design: Parent recommendations for intervention modification in type 1 diabetes. J Fam Psychol. 
2011;25(6):868-72. doi: 10.1037/a0024178. 
 
135. Mulvaney SA, Ritterband LM, Bosslet L. Mobile intervention design in diabetes: Review and 
recommendations. Curr Diab Rep. 2011 Dec;11(6):486-93. doi: 10.1007/s11892-011-0230-y. 
 
136. LeRouge C, Wickramasinghe N. A review of user-centered design for diabetes-related consumer health 
informatics technologies. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):1039-1056. 
 
137. Brabham, D.C. Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series; 2013. 
 
138. Brabham DC, Ribisl KM, Kirchner TR, & Bernhardt JM. Crowdsourcing applications for public health. 
Amer J Pub Health. 2014;46(2):179-87. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.016. 
 
139. Gentles SJ, Lokker C, McKibbon KA. Health information technology to facilitate communication involving 
health care providers, caregivers, and pediatric patients: A scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 
2010;12(2): e22. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1390 
 
140. Grajales FJ 3rd, Sheps S, Ho K, Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G. Social media: a review and tutorial of 
applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2912. 
 
141. Merolli M, Gray K, Martin-Sanchez F. Health outcomes and related effects of using social media in 
chronic disease management: a literature review and analysis of affordances. J Biomed Inform. 
2013;46(6):957-69. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.04.010. 
 
142. Merkel RM, Wright T. Parental self-efficacy and online support among parents of children diagnosed with 
type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Nurs. 2012;38(6):303-8; quiz 309. 
 
143. Balkhi AM, Reid AM, McNamara JP, Geffken GR. The diabetes online community: The importance of 
forum use in parents of children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15(6):408-15. doi: 
10.1111/pedi.12110. 
 
144. Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. 
Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800-13. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0. 
 
145. Crump MJ, McDonnell JV, Gureckis TM. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental 
behavioral research. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410. 
 

25 
 
146. Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 
2012;44(1):1-23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6. 
 
147. Merolli M, Gray K, Martin-Sanchez F. Health outcomes and related effects of using social media in 
chronic disease management: a literature review and analysis of affordances. J Biomed Inform. 
2013;46(6):957-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.04.010. 
 
148. Knafl K, Deatrick JA, Gallo A, et al. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the Family 
Management Measure. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36(5):494-505. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp034. 
 
151. Putnam SP, Rothbart MK. Development of short and very short forms of the Children's Behavior 
Questionnaire. J Pers Assess. 2006;87(1):102-12..  
 
152. Sarason IG, Levine HM, Basham RB, & Sarason BR. Assessing social support: The Social Support 
Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44(1):127-39.  
 
153. Marchante AN, Pulgaron ER, Daigre A, et al. Measurement of parental self-efficacy for diabetes 
management in young children. Child Health Care. 2014;43(2):110-19. 
 
154. Derogatis L. BSI 18: Brief Symptom Inventory 18: Administration, Scoring, and Procedure Manual.    
Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson; 2001. 
 
155. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 
1983;13(3):595-605. doi:10.1017/S0033291700048017 
 
156. Antoni, MH, Lehman, JM, Klibourn, KM, Boyers, AE, Culver, JL, Alferi, SM, Carver, CS. Cognitive-
behavioral stress management intervention decreases the prevalence of depression and enhances 
benefit-finding among women under treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Health Psychol, 2001, 20, 
20-32. 
 
157. Tomich, PL, Helgeson, VS. Is finding something good in the bad always good? Benefit fidning among 
women with breast cancer. Health Psychol, 2004, 23, 16-23. 
 
158. Patton SR, Dolan LM, Henry R, Powers SW. Parental fear of hypoglycemia: young children treated with 
continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Pediatr Diabetes. 2007;8(6):362-8. 
 
159. Cox DJ, Irvine A, Gonder-Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J. Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, 
validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care. 1987;10(5):617-21. doi:10.2337/diacare.10.5.617. 
 
160. Clarke WL, Gonder-Frederick A, Snyder AL, Cox DJ. Maternal fear of hypoglycemia in their children with 
insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 1998;11 Suppl 1:189-94. 
doi:10.1515/JPEM.1998.11.S1.189.  
 
161. Wysocki T, Huxtable K, Linscheid TR, Wayne W. Adjustment to diabetes mellitus in preschoolers and 
their mothers. Diabetes Care. 1989;12(8):524-9. doi:10.2337/diacare.13.4.456. 
 
162. Eyberg S & Pincus D. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory & Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-
Revised: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1999 
 
163. Robinson EA, Eyberg SM, & Ross AW. The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem 
behaviors. J Clin Child Psychol. 1980;9: 22- 28.  
 
164. Wysocki T, Buckloh LM, Antal H, Lochrie A, Taylor A. Validation of a self-report version of the diabetes 
self-management profile. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13(5):438-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2011.00823.x. 
 

26 
 
165. 
Lacher, DA, Berman LE, Chen, TC, Porter, KS.  Comparison of dried blood spot to venous methods for  
 
hemoglobin A1c, glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and C-reactive protein.  
 
Clin Chim Act., 2015, 422 (2013) 54–58 
 
166. 
Miller, IM Lacher, DA Chen, TC, Zipf, GW, Gindi RM, Galinsky, AM, Terry, TL. Collection and laboratory  
methods for dried blood spots for hemoglobin A1c and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in 
population-based surveys. Clinica Chimica Acta 445 (2015) 143–154. 
 
167. Cohen J. & Cohen J. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.    
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983 
 
168. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates; 1996. 
 
169. Littell R, Freund R, & Spector P. SAS System for Linear Models. North Carolina:  SAS Institute Inc; 1992. 
 
170. Khuri A, Mathew T, & Sinha B. Statistical Tests for Mixed Linear Models. New York, NY: John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc; 1998. 
 
171. Winer B, Brown D, & Michels K. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc; 1991. 
 
172. Singer JD & Willett JB. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. 
New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. 
 
173. Raudenbush SW & Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. 
Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2002 
 
174. Dmitrienko A, Molenberghs G, Chuang-Stein C, & Offen W. Analysis of clinical trials using SAS: A 
practical guide. Cary: SAS Press; 2005. 
 
175. Krull JL & MacKinnon DP. Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivar 
Behav Res. 2001; 36:249-277. 
 
176. Muthen LK & Muthen BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen &  Muthen; 2007. 
 
177. Beach ML, Meier P. Choosing covariates in the analysis of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4 
Suppl):161S-175S. 
 
178. Holmbeck GN. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and 
moderators: examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. J Consult Clin Psychol. 
1997;65(4):599-610. 
 
179. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998. 
 
180. Muthen LK & Muthen BO. How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine 
power. Structural Equation Modeling. 2002;9: 599-620. 
 
181. Fan X. Power of latent growth modeling for detecting group differences in linear growth trajectory 
parameters. Structural Equation Modeling. 2003;10: 380-400. 
 
 
 
 
 

27 
 
 
 

28 
 
Human Subjects Protection: 
The Nemours Office of Human Subjects Protection is accredited by the Association for Accreditation of Human 
Research Protection Programs and is one of the few exclusively pediatric programs to be so recognized. (See 
http://www.nemours.org/pediatric-research/approval/human-subjects-protection.html). All research with 
humans is reviewed and approved by a Nemours IRB under Federal-Wide Assurance # 00000293 before  
research activities take place and monitored throughout implementation and dissemination of the research. Dr. 
Wysocki chairs Nemours IRB #2 and so this work will be submitted to IRB #1, which he does not chair. The 
two major phases of this project are: 1. User-centered design and development of the website, which is 
nearing completion; and 2. Randomized controlled trial of Website use, which we are now proposing to initiate. 
We propose to obtain parental permission and informed consent electronically because we believe this offers 
excellent protections to the parent participants, a very convenient means for distribution of “signed and dated” 
consent documents to them and we anticipate proposing electronic informed consent in a larger, multi-site 
randomized controlled trial in the future. We designed the randomized controlled trial so that it requires no 
direct face to face interaction between the researchers and participants, a feature that would greatly facilitate 
replication in a much larger multi-site trial in the future. 
 
 
PHASE 2: Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of 12 Months’ Use of a an Online Resource for 
Parents of Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes Once the online resource is nearly ready to accept 
users, the randomized controlled trial protocol will be submitted for review and approval by Nemours IRB #1. 
The study would be an interventional study that appears to pose no more than minimal risks to participants. All 
of the participants will be adult parents/legal caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes under the age of 6 
years at enrollment. The researchers will not interact directly with the children, but they will be considered 
secondary participants in this research since the intervention is designed to promote their health, safety and 
well-being. 
 
Human participants’ involvement, characteristics and design: We seek to enroll parents or other legal 
caregivers of eligible children receiving T1D care at any operating entity of Nemours Children’s Health System 
or elsewhere in the United States if enrolled via online recruitment. We estimate that we can easily enroll a 
sample of up to 300 families when this RCT is opened to enrollment. While parents are the primary participants 
and will all be adults at the time of enrollment, their young children with T1D are secondary participants since 
their behavior and health outcomes are measured in the study. Participants will include adult 
parents/caregivers who self-identify as parents/caregivers of up to 300 children who were diagnosed with T1D 
before the age of 6 years, whose children carry a physician diagnosis of T1D and receive care at anyNemours 
Children’s Health System location in the Delaware Valley or Florida, (or elsewhere in the United States if 
recruited online). and whose children are not yet 6 years old at the time of enrollment. We have estimated that 
225 mothers and 75 fathers will provide consent to participate, but would be delighted to enroll every father of 
every eligible child. The study design will be a 2X3 randomized treatments design with 2 groups (Website and 
Usual Care; UC) and 3 measurement points (0, 6 and 12 months). Families (mother-father dyads and their 
children with T1D) will be randomized, stratified by insulin modality (pump or injections) and recruitment 
method (Nemours or online enrollment), in a 2:1 (Website:UC) ratio to optimize how much can be learned 
about moderation and mediation of SMP effects and to elucidate SMP utilization and its correlates. All children 
will receive T1D care at a Nemours diabetes center in Florida or the Delaware Valley, or elsewhere in the 
United States if enrolled online..  Children enrolled in this trial will receive T1D care that is equivalent to what 
similar children not enrolled in the study would receive at the same centers. 
Informed Consent Process: Using IRB-approved, electronic informed consent infrastructure established in 
ongoing research at Nemours by Dr. Kathryn Blake (1-R01HL114899-01: Use of Mobile Devices and the 
Internet to Streamline an Asthma Clinical Trial), parents will electronically authenticate an IRB-approved 
informed consent form that will include all of the federally required elements of informed consent and that 
fulfills Nemours pertinent policies and procedures. Per Nemours policy, assent is not required for children 
under 7 years of age to participate in research if appropriate parental permission has been obtained, as it will 
be in this case. 
Sources of research data This study will involve parental completion of questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 
months and either 1. For parents of Nemours patients, access to the child’s electronic health record for 
retrieval of recent HbA1C results and documentation of symptomatic and severe hypoglycemic episodes or 2.). 

29 
 
For parents recruited online, parents will collect and submit dried blood spots. Parents’ use of the online 
resource will also be tracked automatically. At  3, 6 and 12 months after randomization or upon withdrawing the 
study, parents randomized to Website Access will be asked to complete a qualitative interview about their 
experiences with use of the website and their suggested refinements. 
Potential risks: The most likely risks are privacy threats and possible loss of confidentiality, but it would be 
difficult to characterize the potential for harm to participants since the questions do not address illegal, 
unethical or stigmatizing behaviors and all of the participants are adults who may simply decline to answer any 
question that is perceived to be threatening. Participants randomized to UC may be at somewhat higher risk of 
deterioration in metabolic, behavioral and affective outcomes than those randomized to SMP. There is little 
reason to believe that parent or child participants will fare more poorly due to study involvement than if they 
had not enrolled. 
There may be some potential that the online resource created for this trial may contain statements that are 
medically false or misleading. In conversations with Jeff Hitchcock, director of www.childrenwithdiabetes.com, 
parents who utilize that website are exceptionally skilled at self-policing of the website content and are quite 
comfortable in challenging incredulous or unsupportable statements made by other website users. That, 
together with the ready availability of monitoring and feedback by expert T1D health care providers, should 
reduce this risk to negligible. It should be kept in mind that parents of children with T1D are often exposed to 
inaccurate information about the disease and its management and must develop ways of contending with it. It 
is very likely that the proposed online resource will provide in this respect a safer environment to parents due 
to “safety in numbers” than they tend to experience in their daily lives.  
Some parents may demonstrate clinically significant psychiatric symptoms, either pre-existing for exacerbated 
by exchange of information with other parents about the sources of distress inherent in YC-T1D parenting. 
Affective and sleep disorders would be most likely and perhaps as many as 20-25% of the parent crowd could 
have clinically significant psychiatric symptoms.  
Adequacy of protections against risks: No questionnaires will include participants’ names or other identifying 
information. All study records will either be stored electronically on secure network servers or in hard copy in 
locked file cabinets in private offices. All study patients and their parents will be monitored carefully by their 
health care teams and referred for additional services as indicated by those observations. Study participants 
should fare no differently from similar patients and parents who do not take part in the study. 
Parents in this phase of the research will be completing the Brief Symptom Inventory, a psychiatric symptom 
screening measure, and the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, a screening measure of childhood behavioral 
problems, at 0, 6 and 12 months, affording an opportunity to detect clinically significant symptom levels as well 
as deterioration in psychiatric status at each measurement point. Parents whose scores exceed a clinical cutoff 
of T-score > 65 on the Brief Symptom Inventory, or whose children score above the Eyberg Child Behavior 
Inventory clinical cutoff scores of 127 for Intensity or 11 for Number of  Problems, will be contacted by 
telephone as soon as possible after the elevated score is obtained and assisted by the research team in 
obtaining a referral to a psychologist, psychiatrist or qualified mental health service provider in their region for 
further evaluation and possible treatment. 
Special attention will be given to monitoring of deterioration in diabetes outcomes among UC participants. All 
Nemours sites include multidisciplinary resources to which patients can be referred for augmented care and 
education in nursing, nutrition, psychology, and social work should the child’s health status or psychological 
adjustment require such actions.  
 
Potential benefits to participants and others: Participants in the Website group may benefit in a variety of ways 
from use of the  online resource, but this cannot be guaranteed. Participants may appreciate the opportunity to 
help others who face the challenges of living with T1D in this age group.  
Importance of the knowledge to be gained: The study will yield extensive information from parents for parents 
about the content, structure, function and governance of a social media portal for parents of very young 
children with type 1 diabetes. There is no other study that has compiled this kind of information from parents 
for this specific purpose.  Nor has any study returned to the same parents to ensure that their perspectives 
have been reflected appropriately in the subsequent stage of refined website design and execution. 

30 
 
Data and safety monitoring plan: The study poses no greater than minimal risk but it does involve a clinical trial 
of a behavioral intervention. In our opinions, the level of risk that is likely to be encountered by participants in 
this study does not rise to the level that requires an independent or external DSMB. Instead, Drs. Wysocki, 
Pierce and Lee will serve as safety officers who will oversee participants’ experiences, receive any 
unanticipated problem reports or participant complaints, ensure IRB notification as required by Nemours 
policies and procedures, and implement indicated safety precautions or other human subjects protection 
actions. Special attention will be given to monitoring of deterioration in diabetes outcomes among UC 
participants. 
 
REPRESENTATION OF FEMALES, MINORITIES AND CHILDREN 
 
Inclusion of Females 
Females are expected to represent a majority of parent-participants in both the Social Media Portal Design and 
Development Phase (~76%) and the Randomized Controlled Trial (~67%). Females absorb the bulk of 
responsibility for T1D care for children under 6 and we expect that they may be more frequent users of the 
social media portal once it is completed. 
 
Female children will represent about half of the child participants in the Randomized Controlled Trial. 
 
Inclusion of Minorities 
There is little direct scientific evidence indicating that racial or ethnic minority status, economic disadvantage or 
low health literacy/numeracy are associated differentially with benefit accrued from using a social media portal 
such as that proposed here. However, given the robust nature of health care disparities in other contexts, it is 
reasonable to suspect that these groups may derive less benefit from this resource than other, more 
advantaged, demographic groups. We have therefore designed the research plan to enable evaluation of these 
questions and to give disadvantaged populations equitable access to the potential benefits of participation in 
this research. In addition to oversampling of racial and ethnic minorities, we will strive to achieve exceptional 
diversity in our enrolled samples in terms of household income, education, health literacy/numeracy and 
internet and social media fluency 
 
In the randomized controlled trial, we expect to enroll 84 parents (28% of the sample) who are members of 
racial minority groups, including African Americans (11%), Asians (9%) and Multiple/Other (11%). In terms of 
ethnicity, Hispanics will account for about 7% of the participants in the RCT.   
 
Inclusion of Children 
 
We project that 300 parents (225 “mothers” and “75 fathers”) of 225 distinct children with T1D will enroll in the 
study. In the randomized controlled trial, these 225 children will be secondary participants in that parents will 
complete questionnaires about them and routinely obtained clinical data will be retrieved from their electronic 
medical records. We expect their racial and ethnic composition to parallel that of their parents (about 28% racial 
minorities and about 7% of Hispanic ethnicity). Recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities is limited in this trial 
by the racial and ethnic composition of the available clinical population.. We will strive to enroll every family of 
every eligible child, but we estimate that parents/caregivers of about 225 children with T1D will actually enroll. 
 
 

31 
 
Multiple PI Leadership Plan 
Tim Wysocki, PhD, ABPP and Jessica Pierce, PhD will serve as Multiple Principal Investigators on this grant. 
Our rationale for organizing the application in this way rests on these considerations: 
• 
Dr. Wysocki has a very strong track record of obtaining external funding for his program of research on 
family adaptation to pediatric T1D and in the implementation, management, analysis and dissemination 
of that research. He also has an extensive background in human subjects protection and the 
responsible conduct of research. 
• 
Dr. Wysocki has multiple commitments that prevent him from dedicating more than 20% of his time and 
effort to this work. Providing opportunities for Dr. Pierce to learn the grant submission and management 
process offers a serendipitous way for him to pursue this innovative and exciting work at a somewhat 
lower level of effort that he can deliver with certainty. 
• 
Dr. Pierce is an emerging investigator who brings special qualifications to the project, in that she was 
diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at an early age and she is exceptionally familiar with the diabetes online 
community. 
• 
Dr. Wysocki is experienced in website design and development based on stakeholder-driven design 
and construction of two web platforms for decision aids in his ongoing PCORI-funded study. 
• 
As a young adult diagnosed with T1D at age 5, Dr. Pierce can readily engage with young parents of 
children with T1D under age 6. Dr. Wysocki is well known to many pediatric T1D clinicians across the 
US who he can recruit to serve as members of the health care provider crowd. 
• 
Dr. Wysocki is located at Nemours Children’s Clinic in Jacksonville, while Dr. Pierce’s office is at 
Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando. Having a physical presence in both sites will facilitate careful 
and consistent implementation of the proposed work. Dr. Pierce and Co-Investigator Dr. Aroian are 
both located in Orlando and can meet face to face conveniently.  
• 
Dr. Pierce has strong research interests in applications of developmental psychology concepts and 
methods to the understanding of adaptation to the demands of type 1 diabetes during the extreme ends 
of the pediatric age continuum. Her ongoing research on the transition to adult care for emerging adults 
with T1D complements her interests in the population of very young children with T1D. 
• 
While Dr. Wysocki has no firm retirement plans, it is possible that he will retire during the 4-year period 
of award should this application be funded. If that were to happen, Dr. Pierce would be well prepared to 
assume responsibility for project completion. 
 
We therefore propose the following division of responsibilities as part of this Multiple PI leadership plan: 
 
Responsibility Domain 
Dr. Wysocki 
Dr. Pierce 
Corresponding Investigator 
X 
 
Coordinate Family Advisors activities 
 
X 
Develop/implement human subject protection plan 
X 
 
Populate parent crowd/community 
 
X 
Populate health care provider crowd/community 
X 
 
Interactions with Appirio, Inc. 
X 
 
Interactions with Nemours Web Development Team 
 
X 
Interactions with Karen Aroian, PhD, RN around qualitative research methods 
 
X 
Manage interactions with parent and health care provider crowds 
 
X 
Integrate parent and health care provider crowd input into platform design 
 
X 
Manage interactions with application developer crowd 
X 
 
Integrate application developer crowd input into platform design 
X 
 
Engage and coordinate with Co-Investigator Joyce Lee, MD, MPH 
X 
 
Manage research specialist and coordinator staff 
 
X 
Manage fiscal aspects of the project 
X 
 
Interactions with statistician Jobayer Hossain, PhD 
X 
 
Verify data quality 
X 
X 
Ensure responsible conduct of research 
X 
X 
Assemble and coordinate writing teams 
X 
X 

32 
 
Disseminate project findings 
X 
X 
Plan and prepare subsequent grant applications 
X 
X 
 
Roles/areas of responsibility of the MPIs 
• Fiscal and management coordination: Dr. Wysocki will have primary responsibility for fiscal management of 
the project and for personnel actions. 
• Process for making decisions on scientific direction and allocation of resources: Drs. Pierce and Wysocki will 
achieve consensus on such decisions and, in the very unlikely event of an unresolved disagreement, bring the 
issue to Dr. Vicky Funanage, Director of Nemours Biomedical Research, for resolution. 
• Data sharing and communication among investigators: Drs. Pierce and Wysocki will have equal access to 
study data via a shared drive location with secure limited access. 
• Publication and intellectual property (if needed) policies: Dr. Wysocki’s center has clearly stated policies and 
procedures for publications and other academic products that are based on the pertinent American 
Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles for Psychologists. 
• Procedures for resolving conflicts: We will follow the APA ethical principles and, in the very unlikely event of 
an unresolved disagreement, bring the issue to Dr. Vicky Funanage, Director of Nemours Biomedical 
Research, for resolution.