The concept of self-management of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents: an evolutionary concept analysis

AIM: An evolutionary concept analysis was undertaken to clarify the concept of self-management of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents. BACKGROUND: Several problems exist in the literature on self-management of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents. There is no uniform terminology and there is no uniform definition of the concept. Also, there is no differentiation in the literature between self-management of diabetes in children and adults. METHODS: Ninety-nine references were reviewed and analysed in the disciplines of nursing, medicine, and psychology. After separate analyses revealed no significant differences across disciplines, the analyses were combined to describe the attributes, antecedents, consequences, and surrogate and related concepts. RESULTS: The three essential attributes of the concept were identified as process, activities, and goals. Self-management of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents is an active and proactive process; it is daily, lifelong, and flexible, and it involves shifting and shared responsibility for diabetes care tasks and decision-making between child and parent. It is a process that involves collaboration with health care providers. Self-management of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents also consists of varied and many activities related to giving insulin, monitoring metabolic control, regulating diet and exercise, to name just a few. The concept also involves goals, which may differ from one parent/child dyad to another. A working definition of the concept is suggested. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that a more uniform definition of the concept will enable researchers to continue investigating antecedents and consequences of the concept in a way that allows for aggregating results.     

The gel test: use in the identification of unexpected antibodies to blood group antigens

The IgG GEL test was compared with the LISS tube test (L?w and Messeter's low-ionic-strength saline) for antibody identification. The suitability of red blood cells (RBCs) pretreated with ficin, dithiothreitol (DTT), or chloroquine diphosphate (CDP) also was assessed for use in the GEL test. In addition, time-in-motion studies were performed comparing GEL (12 panels per batch) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) tube tests (3 panels per batch). In 57 antibody identification studies, there were 63 GEL+ LISS+, 2 GEL+ LISS-, and 6 GEL-LISS+ antibodies. Among the GEL+ LISS+ antibodies were 19 that yielded stronger reactions in GEL than in LISS; by virtue of their specificity, 14 of these are considered potentially significant: D, 5 E, 2 e, 2 Jka, 2 S, K, and Fya. There were 38 antibodies that yielded equivalent results by both methods, including 31 that are considered potentially significant. Of six antibodies with significantly greater reactivity in LISS, there were three anti-Rh and three that are considered harmless with respect to transfusion management. The two GEL+ LISS- antibodies (anti-Jkb) were potentially significant. GEL- LISS+ reactions involved only harmless antibodies. Of the 50 antibodies of potential significance, GEL yielded equivalent or superior results in 47 (94%) instances. Additionally, GEL failed to detect 6 of 21 harmless antibodies. Expected results were obtained with normal serum or plasma and antibodies of known specificity in tests with RBCs treated with ficin, DTT, or CDP. Hands-on-time required for each GEL panel was 2 to 21/2 minutes compared with 12 minutes for PEG. These data document the suitability of GEL for use in antibody identification studies.