4.5 Article

Disentangling the Roles of Parental Monitoring and Family Conflict in Adolescents' Management of Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 388-396

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0027811

关键词

type 1 diabetes; adolescence; family conflict; self-care; parental monitoring

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [5R01DK070917-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Less parental monitoring of adolescents' diabetes self-care and more family conflict are each associated with poorer diabetes outcomes. However, little is known about how these two family factors relate with one another in the context of self-care and glycemic control. Diabetes self-care was evaluated as a mediator of the associations among parental monitoring, family conflict, and glycemic control in early adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Adolescent-parent dyads (n = 257) reported on the frequency of parental monitoring, family conflict, and diabetes self-care. Hemoglobin A1c was abstracted from medical charts. Structural equation modeling was used for mediation analysis. Results: A mediation model linking parental involvement and family conflict with A1c through diabetes self-care fit the data well. Monitoring and conflict were inversely correlated (beta = -0.23, p < .05) and each demonstrated indirect associations with A1c (standardized indirect effects -0.13 and 0.07, respectively) through their direct associations with self-care (beta = 0.39, p < .001 and beta = -0.19, p < .05, respectively). Conflict also was positively associated with higher A1c (beta = 0.31, p < .01). Conclusions: Elevated family conflict and less parental monitoring are risk factors for poorer glycemic control, and diabetes self-care is one mediator linking these variables. Interventions to promote parental monitoring of diabetes management during early adolescence may benefit from emphasizing strategies to prevent or reduce family conflict.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据