<%BANNER%>

Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes


PAGE 1

FAMILY FACTORS, ADHERENCE, AND METABOLIC CONTROL IN YOUTH WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES. By DANNY C. DUKE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Danny C. Duke

PAGE 3

To my family, whose sacrifices made my education possible.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my grat itude to my mentor and chair, Dr. Gary R. Geffken. Also, my appreciation goes to Adam Le win and Laura Bimbo, for their as sistance with data collection; and to Dr. Janet Silverstein, Di vision Chief of Pediatric Endocri nology, for allowing us to recruit families from the pediatric diabetes clinic. Finally, thanks are due to my committee members, Dr. Sheila Eyberg, Dr. Michael Perri, and Dr. William Perlstein.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Overview of Diabetes...................................................................................................1 Treatment and the Diabetes Contro l and Complications Trial (DCCT).......................2 Measures of Adherence................................................................................................4 Measures of Metabolic Control....................................................................................7 Relationships between Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control................7 Diabetes Specific Family Measures............................................................................10 Externalizing, Diabetes Sp ecific Family Functioning, Adherence and Metabolic Control....................................................................................................................14 Summary.....................................................................................................................14 2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................17 Question 1: Family Factors Pr edicting Metabolic Control.........................................17 Question 2: Adherence Mediating between Diabetes-Specific Family Factors and Metabolic Control...................................................................................................17 Question 3: Family factors mediating be tween child externalizing and metabolic control.....................................................................................................................17 Question 4: Adherence mediating child externalizing behaviors and metabolic control?....................................................................................................................18 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................22 Participants and Settings.............................................................................................22 Procedure....................................................................................................................22 Measures.....................................................................................................................23 Demographic Questionnaire................................................................................23

PAGE 6

vi Diabetes-Specific Family Measures....................................................................23 Diabetes Family Behavior Scale (DFBS).....................................................23 Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC)..............................................24 Diabetes Family Responsibi lity Questionnaire (DFRQ)..............................24 Child Behavior.....................................................................................................25 Child Behavior Checklist.............................................................................25 Measurement of Adherence.................................................................................25 Measure of Metabolic Control.............................................................................26 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................27 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................44 Interpretation of Results.............................................................................................44 Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions.......................................................47 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................50 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................56

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Demographic Characteristics...............................................................................................3 6 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations for Age, HbA1c, Duration of Diabetes, and Income........37 4-3 Intercorrelations between HbA1c, Diab etes Family Measures, Adherence, and Externalizing.................................................................................................................. ......38 4-4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predic ting HbA1c from Diabetes-Related Family Factors and Adherence.........................................................................................................3 9 4-5 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predic ting HbA1c from Parent and Child Report of Adherence...................................................................................................................... .......40 4-6 Mediation Regression Analysis Pred icting HbA1c: Adherence Mediating the Relationship between Family Factors (DFBC) and Metabolic Cont rol (HbA1c): Final Block of the Regression.......................................................................................................4 1 4-7 Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbA1c: Family Factors (DFBC) Mediating the Relationship between Child Externalizi ng and Metabolic Cont rol (HbA1c): Final Block of the Regression.......................................................................................................4 2 4-8 Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbA1c : Adherence Mediating the Relationship between Child Externalizing a nd Metabolic Control (HbA1c): Final Block of the Regression.............................................................................................................. ....43

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Theoretical model of adherence mediati ng family factors and metabolic control...............19 2-2 Theoretical model of family factors medi ating externalizing and metabolic control..........20 2-3 Theoretical model of adherence mediat ing externalizing and metabolic control................21 4-1 The relationship between family factor s (DFBC) and metabolic control (HbA1c) partially mediated by ad herence (Parent DSMP).................................................................33 4-2 The relationship between externalizing a nd metabolic control (HbA1c) fully mediated by family factors (DFBC)....................................................................................................34 4-3 The relationship between externalizing and me tabolic control (HbA1c) fully mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP)...............................................................................................35

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FAMILY FACTORS, ADHERENCE, AND METABOLIC CONTROL IN YOUTH WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES By Danny C. Duke December 2006 Chair: Gary Geffken Major: Psychology Considerable research has examined the relationship of fa mily variables and adherence to metabolic control in pediatric popu lations with type 1 diabetes, with most studies finding that these c onstructs were only weakly re lated to metabolic control. Children and adolescents with type 1 diab etes are often noncompliant with their prescribed treatment regimens Clinical evidence suggests th at poor adherence leads to poor metabolic control and conversely that co mpliance with a diabetes treatment regimen predicts good metabolic contro l. Inadequate metabolic c ontrol leads to physiological complications (e.g., retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy) at an earlier age. Our study examined the ability of a combined battery of diabetes-specific family functioning measures (e.g., family responsibility, parent al support, guidance, warmth, and criticism specific to diabetes care) to predict metabolic control (health status). One hundred twenty children and parents, who presented in a pe diatric diabetes clinic, completed four measures of diabetes-specific family func tioning, and separate adherence interviews.

PAGE 10

x Overall, combined with dem ographic variables, these measures predicted approximately 44% of the variance in metabolic control. Examination of parent and child reports of adherence showed that, while controlling for demographic variables, parent report accounted for 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control, while chil d report did not add significantly to the variance accounted for in metabolic c ontrol beyond parent report. Adherence was found to partially mediate the relationship between child metabolic control and perceptions of parental nagging, criticizing, and arguing about diabetes specific tasks. Family variab les were found to partially me diate the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control and adherence was found to fully mediate the relationship between child externalizing and metabolic control. Our data suggest that reports of adherence behaviors are strongly rela ted to a child's health status independently and through important pathways of family functioning. These data suggest that an increased and comprehensive focus on assessin g and monitoring family behaviors related to adherence is critical for optimizing health-status outcomes.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of Diabetes The incidence of diabetes in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide (Diabetes Control and Complications Tr ial Research Group, 1986; EURODIAB ACE Study Group, 2000; Onkamo et al., 1999). This disease adds signi ficantly to public health care costs and profoundl y affects individual quality of life, having treatment demands that are often complex and unrelenting. Diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases in school-aged childr en, affecting about 151,000 young people in the United States, or about 1 in every 400 to 500 youth under 20 years of age. With the peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurr ing at puberty (Feingold & Funk, 1997), the prevalence of type 1 diabetes in the U.S. is increasing with approximately 30,000 new cases of type 1 diabetes diagnosed annually (Engelgau & Geiss, 2000). Pancreatic beta cells are insulin-produci ng bodies within the pancreas that are responsible for producing the insulin necessa ry for the body’s metabolism of glucose. Type 1 diabetes is thought to result from an autoimmune process that leads to the destruction of the insulin produc ing beta cells. The typically acute onset develops over a period of a few days to weeks. The percentage of beta cell destruction ranges from 60 to 80% at the time of clinical symptom presen tation (National Diabetes Data Group, 1995; Notkins & Lernmark, 2001). Without insulin, cells are unable to metabolize sugars present in the bloodstream. As a means of compensating for the body’s lack of insulin production, individuals with diabetes require insulin via subcutaneous injections.

PAGE 12

2 Additionally, maintaining near normal blood-glucose levels requires intensive and oftencomplex management, including frequent blood -glucose monitoring and regular exercise, and dietary and insulin adjustments based on blood-glucose levels (American Diabetes Association, 2003). Treatment and the Diabetes Contro l and Complications Trial (DCCT) To avoid periods of elevated blood sugar (hyperglycemia), the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend that i ndividuals with type 1 diabetes maintain blood glucose levels of 80 to120 mg/dL. Hyperglycemia can lead to long-term complications, including retinopathy, hypertension, neuropathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular disease (ADA, 2003). Pr ofound hyperglycemia associated with insufficient insulin can result in diabetic ke toacidosis (DKA), a le thal condition if not promptly treated with insulin and fluids (Feingold & Funk, 1997). The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) identified an empirical relationship between intensive insulin therapy and reduced complications (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group, 1987; 1993; 1994). This randomize d, controlled clinical trial showed that for patients with type 1 diabetes, the risk of the development and progression of retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy is reduced 50 to 75% by intensive treatment regimens when compared to conventional treatment regimens. For example, Zhang, Krzentowski, Albert, & Lefebvre (2001) found that, among patients in the DCCT (ages 13 to 39) with mean HbA1c < 6.87% (good co ntrol), 90% remained free of retinopathy. However, in patients with a mean HbA1 c > 9.49% (poor control), complications developed in 57% of the patients. In a study of 195 adolescents, participants who were assigned an intensive therapy regimen (administr ation of three or more injections per day or use of an insulin pump, adjustment of in sulin based on blood-glucose levels, at least

PAGE 13

3 four blood-glucose tests per day, diet, and ex ercise) showed delayed onset and slower progression of retinopathy compared to individu als in a conventional therapy (one or two insulin injections and self monitoring of blood glucose at least twice per day). Additionally, intensive therapy also redu ced the risk of the development of microalbuminuria, which is a precursor to the development of diabetes-related nephropathy (Diabetes Control and Complications Research Group, 1994). To prevent long-term complications, th e DCCT research group recommended intensive insulin and monitoring therapy for adults and adolescents as young as 13 years old (Diabetes Control and Research Group, 1993, 1994). While intensive therapy reduces the risk of diabetes-related complications and high HbA1c levels, it is a complex and demanding regimen for children and families. Physicians typically prescribe complex daily regimens that include insulin inj ections, blood-glucose monitoring, diet and exercise. It is expected that these behavioral adjustments be integrated into the patient’s daily routine. Data indicate that children and adolescents are often noncompliant with many of these recommendations. A nine-yea r follow-up study by Kovacs and colleagues (1992) established that 45% of adolescents engage in some significant form of noncompliance during adolescence. These finding s were before the publication of DCCT research, before intensive insulin therapy was routinely prescribed. As children and adolescent medical regimens become more intense and complex, understanding adherence becomes an increasingly important facet of treatment. Past research has often failed to account for the behaviora l contributions of the child to reciprocal parent-child interactio ns necessary to administer such complex treatment regimens. There are many problematic child behaviors that may contribute to

PAGE 14

4 poor regimen adherence. Achenbach (1991) categorized childhood problems into the two broad dimensions of internalizing and extern alizing. Internalizing encompasses behavior problems characterized by anxiet y, depression, and social wit hdrawal, while externalizing behavior problems are characterized by aggr ession and antisocial behavior. Limited research has examined relationships betw een child psychopathology, family functioning and metabolic control. Work by Northam et al. (2005) found that in a sample of adolescents with diabetes, those with high bl ood sugars had higher levels of externalizing behaviors than those with good and low blood sugars. Conversely, Cohen et al. (2003) found that lack of internalizing behaviors significantly predicted adherence in an economically disadvantaged population. Measures of Adherence Haynes (1979) defined compliance as the extent to which a person’s behavior coincides with medical or health advi ce. Johnson (1993) maintains that defining adherence (or compliance) with the childhood di abetes regimen is difficult due to the multitude and complexity of the regimen beha viors. This has hindered the development of an accurate and reliable measure of adherence for youth with diabetes. Adherence to diabetes treatment regime ns is multidimensional, with research demonstrating that a patient’s be havior with regard to one as pect of the diabetes regimen is not predictive of the same patient’s beha vior in relation to ot her components of the regimen (Glasgow, McCaul, & Schafer, 1987; Johnson et al 1986; Kavanagh, Gooley, & Wilson, 1993). Adding to the obfuscation, there is not universal agreement on explicit standards for measuring adherence. Methods ra nge on a continuum from direct to indirect (La Greca, 1990). Intuitively, the most accurate method of assessment would be observation of diabetes care be havior. However, the behavior al observational approach is

PAGE 15

5 impractical for the clinical scientist practit ioner since the complexity of the diabetes treatment regimen would require intense scru tiny of numerous behaviors over extended periods of observation. Indirect measures of adherence behavior offer an alternative means of assessment. One approach involves obtaining patient self-re ports or parental reports of adherence (Anderson, Auslander, Jung, Miller, & Santia go, 1990). La Greca (1990) cautions about generaliza tions from self-reports due to extensive variability in their detail and comprehens iveness. Johnson, Silverstei n, Rosenbloom, Carter, and Cunningham (1986) developed a 24-hour re call interview to quantify adherence behaviors. Interviewers ask patients and parents, over a series of three 20-minute structured phone interviews, to describe diabetes-management behaviors during the previous 24-hour period. Statis tical analyses resulted in i ndices of adherence. Broadly speaking these indices covered different aspect s of glucose testing, insulin administration, diet, and exercise constructs. Significant correlations betwee n parent and child report was documented in separate analyses (F reund, Johnson, Silverstein, & Thomas, 1991; Johnson et al., 1986; Spevack, Johnson, & Rile y, 1991). Advantages of the interview include a minimization of recall errors, improve d reliability, and the ability to capture a non-reactive example of the child’s adherence. However, the 24-hour recall interview is difficult to implement in a clinical setting, du e to its reliance on multiple interviews (3 child, 3 parent) and complex scoring system (McNabb, 1997). The resources required to conduct interviews and analyze data (e.g., tim e and manpower) are not typically available to healthcare providers. Add itionally, despite the comprehens iveness of the 24-hour recall interview, strong associations between adherence and HbA1 c were not supported in a

PAGE 16

6 longitudinal analysis of approximately 200 children using the measure (Johnson, Kelly, Henretta, Cunningham, Tome r, & Silverstein, 1992). The Self-Care Adherence Inventory (SCAI) (Hanson, Henggeler, & Burghen 1987), a semi-structured interview that assesse s adherence to type 1 diabetes treatment regimens, provides an alternative to the 24-hour recall interview (Hanson et al., 1987; Hanson, DeGuire, Schinkel, Kolterman, Goodman, & Buckingham, 1996). The interview is administered to the patient by an indi vidual familiar with the requirements of the diabetes regimen. The SCAI content areas in clude glucose testing, dietary behaviors, insulin adjustment, and hypoglycemia prepar edness. The authors found that the SCAI related to HbA1c on three se parate administrations (partial r = -0.28, -0.25, and -0.20, p < 0.001). The SCAI was further refined and the Diab etes Self Management Profile (DSMP) was developed by Harris and colleagues (2000) The DSMP consists of structured interviews of children/adolescents and parent s with diabetes, consisting of 23 questions, that assess five areas of diabetes manage ment, including: insulin administration/dose adjustment, blood-glucose monitoring, exerci se, diet, and management of hypoglycemia. The DSMP is designed to access diabetes self-management over the preceding three months. Investigators found good internal c onsistency and inter-observer agreement (Harris et al., 2000). Th e predictive validity ( r = -0.28, p < 0.01) for metabolic control with the DSMP was consistent with data from the SCAI, however, the measure was shown to only account for 7.8% of the variance in metabolic control (HbA1c) (Harris et al., 2000).

PAGE 17

7 Measures of Metabolic Control While adherence is a behavioral construct, metabolic control is a biological assay of health status. The widely accepted standa rd of measurement for metabolic control is the glycated hemoglobin A1c test (GHB/HbA 1c). HbA1c is a measure of glucose bound to specific hemoglobin molecules within re d blood cells. The amount of glucose bound to such hemoglobin molecules is directly proportion al to the concentration of glucose in the blood. Therefore, HbA1c provides an es timate of the average blood glucose concentration. Since red blood cells live fo r approximately 90 days this provides an estimate over the preceding 8 to12 weeks. Th e DCCT observed an average HbA1c of 7.2% for individuals in the intensive tr eatment group compared to 9.0% in the conventional treatment group, indicating that i ndividuals in the inte nsive insulin therapy group were under better metabolic control. Relationships between Family Factor s, Adherence, and Metabolic Control Despite the findings from the DCCT, most studies fail to find high or even moderate correlations between regimen a dherence and diabetes metabolic control (Glascow et al., 1987; Hans on et al., 1987; Hanson et al ., 1996; Harris et al., 2000; Johnson et al, 1986, 1992, 1993, 1994; Kavanagh et al., 1993; Schafer, McCaul, & Glasgow, 1986; Spevack et al., 1991). An expl anation for this discrepancy might result from examination of the instrument used to measure adherence. Most studies of adherence have measured an individual’s be havior in relation to an ideal treatment regimen, and have not examined variations from individual pres criptions (La Greca, 1990). Additionally, if a patient’s prescribed treatment regime n was ineffective, perfect adherence would not be expected to rela te to good metabolic control (Johnson, 1992). Currently, there is no specific, standardized set of self-care behaviors applicable to all

PAGE 18

8 children with diabetes. It is difficult to measure congruity of behaviors that are not uniformly defined in operational terms (McNabb, 1997). Johnson (1993) maintains that only weak relationships exist between meta bolic control and behavior. Nevertheless, clinical evidence indicates adherence is a si gnificant predictor of metabolic control. For example, data from a residential treatmen t program for youth in poor metabolic control demonstrate a significant mean reduction in HbA1c when the treatment regimen is delivered in a controlled environment (Geffken, Lewis, Johnson, Silverstein, Rosenbloom, & Monaco, 1997). Glascow et al. (1987) suggested that the relationship between adherence and metabolic control is not always straightforward, and regimen adherence must be examined in the context of other factors. Anderson and Coyne (1993) argue that examination of adherence in chronically ill children must include the parent’s involvement in treatment tasks. When c onsidering the complexity of diabetes management, it is intuitive to consider that familial relationships and parental behaviors will relate to child health status. The relationships between family functio ning, diabetes adherence and metabolic control have been the focus of several an alyses (Anderson et al ., 1990; Lewin et al., 2006; Liss, Waller, Kennard, McIntire, Capra, Stephens, 1998; McKelvey et al., 1993; Schafer et al., 1986; Waller et al., 1986). For example, Hauser and colleagues (1990) found that children’s perceptions of family conflict, as measured by the Family Environmental Scale (FES), were the strongest predictor of poor adherence with multiple diabetes treatment regimen components ( r = 0.50, p < 0.001). In addition, the study suggested that child and parent perception of family cohesion was related to both im proved adherence, and comprehensive levels of patient

PAGE 19

9 adherence. Likewise, a study f ound that child report of parent-child co nflict (measured by the Parent-Child Scales) contributes to the unique variance in predicting both adherence ( r = 0.50, p < 0.001) and metabolic control ( r = 0.31, p < 0.05) (Miller-Johnson, Emery, Marvin, Clarke, Lovinger, & Martin, 1994). Similarly, Hanson, De Guire, Schinkle, Henggeler, and Burghen (1992) found that both disease-specific and general family factors related to treatment adherence. A nother study by Leonard et al, (2002) using the Youth Self-report, found that individuals who reported higher levels of attention problems, and higher levels of aggressive and delinquent behaviors reported worse metabolic control as measured by HbA1c. Ho wever, there is some controversy in the literature regarding the optimal method for meas uring family interaction. Several studies indicate that general measures of family functioning (gener al family stress, conflict, support, etc.), such as the Family Environm ental Scale (FES) and the Family Assessment Measure (Skinner, Steinhauser, & Santa-Barb ara, 1983), do not correlate with metabolic control (Hauser et al ., 1990; Liss et al., 1998; Schafer, Glasgow, McCaul, & Dreher, 1983). It is possible that certain weaknesses in family functioning are distinct from general family function, being limited to the i ssues and concerns specific to dealing with the demands of diabetes. Measures of family functioning that are specifically designed for families of children with diabetes (e.g., fa mily support specifically related to diabetes care) may be more sensitive in detecting relationships between family functioning and metabolic control. While the FES and other ge neral measures of family interaction may assess characteristics such as family orga nization, the DFBS includes assessments of diabetes specific family dimensions, e.g. or ganization specific to diabetes management.

PAGE 20

10 For example, Liss et al. (1998) found that children hospitalized with DKA and their parents reported less diabetes family support than did a clinic control group. However, the Family Assessment Measure (a non-diabetes -specific measure of family functioning) detected no differences in family functioni ng between the DKA and clinic control groups. Additionally, Schafer et al. ( 1983) found that diabetes-speci fic family measures were more predictive of adherence than were mo re general measures of family interaction (mean correlation between general measures of family interaction and adherence M < 0.10; mean correlation between diabetes -specific measures and adherence M = 0.18. The Diabetes-Specific Family Behavior Scale (DFBS; Waller et al ., 1986), the Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC; Schafe r et al., 1983), and the Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ; Anders on et al., 1990) are three measures of diabetes-specific family support. There follo ws a description of these three measures specifically developed to assess diab etes-specific family interaction. Diabetes Specific Family Measures. Waller and colleagues (1986) developed the Diabetes-Specific Family Behavior Scale of child/adolescent report of diabetes -specific family behaviors. The study investigated whether the child ’s overall perception of fam ily diabetes-specific support predicted metabolic control. The scale de veloped by Waller and colleagues (1986) was based on the assumption that diabetes specific fa mily behaviors consisted of three distinct child perceived dimensions: parental warm th/caring, parental guidance/control about diabetes, and diabetes related problem solv ing. Children and adolescents, ages 7 to 17, completed the measure with results indi cating that, for children under age 13 ( n = 20), there was a significant association ( r = 0.50, p < 0.001) between the child’s perception of family-guidance/control and metabolic co ntrol (HbA1c), the same finding was not

PAGE 21

11 present for older adolescents. Examples of DF BS items that correlated significantly with metabolic control were as follows: Whether the parent watches while the child tests for blood sugar ( r = 0.55) Whether the parent writes down blood sugar tests ( r = 0.52) Whether the child has someone in the fa mily to talk to about diabetes ( r = 0.55) The correlation between metabolic control and warmth/caring was 0.36, p < 0.03 across the entire age span of 7 to 17 years. Walle r et al (1986) found the problem solving scale did not account for a significan t portion of the variance in metabolic control. Further examination of the DFBS by McKelvey and co lleagues (1993) replic ated the correlation between family guidance/control and diabetes metabolic control However, the child report of guidance/control accounted for only 1.4% of the variance in HbA1c and problem-solving was again not re lated to metabolic control. The Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (Anderson et al. 1990) is a questionnaire that measures mother and child perceptions of division of responsibility for diabetes tasks related to treatment. In this study the measure was administered to both children/adolescents (age 6-21) and their mo thers. Responses for each item could be classified into one of three possible pattern s from the dyad scores: (1) perfect agreement (both mother and child agree as to how th e responsibility is shared), (2) overlap (disagreement where both mo ther and child claim re sponsibility), and (3) no responsibility (neither mother nor child report responsibility fo r a task). Factor analysis revealed a three-factor solu tion representing these domains: general health management tasks, regimen tasks, and social presentati on of diabetes. The investigators found that mother-child dyad scores indicating that no one takes responsibility for diabetes management, and lower adherence scores ba sed on parental report explained 13.4% of

PAGE 22

12 the variance in HbA1c. Parent-child dyad scor es indicating that neit her the parent nor the child takes responsibility for diabetes ma nagement correlated significantly with metabolic control ( r = 0.32, p < 0.001). A study by Wysocki and colleagues found that children and adolescents reporting increased diabetes management responsibilities relative their developmental level on a com posite index of the DFRQ and the Diabetes Independence Survey demonstrated less tr eatment adherence and marginally worse metabolic control (Wysocki, Linschlid, Taylor, Yeates, Hough, & Naglieri, 1996). Schafer and colleagues (1983) developed the Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC) to assess patient and family memb er report of supportive (positive) and unsupportive (negative) diabetes-specific fam ily behaviors. Administration of the DFBC to 34 adolescents demonstrated significant re lationships between negative DFBC scores and adolescent’s self-reported adherence to diet, care in measuring insulin, and frequency of glucose testing. However in a subsequent administration of the DFBC by Schafer and colleagues (1986) wherein adolescents (ages 12 to 19) and adults (ages 20 and older) completed the measures, negative family behaviors (related to glucose testing, insulin injections, and diet) were inversely correlated with adherence in adults, but neither positive nor negative DFBC scores were significantly related to adherence in adolescents. Reports of unsupportive DFBC scores (cri ticism, nagging, argumentative statements) were marginally correlated ( r = 0.24, p < 0.10) with metabolic contro l in adults but not in adolescents. However, it may be that this st udy lacked statistical pow er to detect such a relationship, as only 18 adoles cents were included in this sample. Nevertheless, Hanson and colleagues (1987) suggested that the meas ure was the best instrument available for

PAGE 23

13 assessing parental support of the diabetes treatment regimen, despite the need for larger sample sizes to demonstrate its predictive validity. In a study evaluating a parent-adolescen t teamwork approach to diabetes management, families in the interventi on group reported significantly less conflict (measured by the DFBC) and were in better metabolic control (Anderson, Ho, Brackett, & Laffel, 1999). In addition, Scha fer et al (1983) demonstrated a significant relationship between negative DFBC scores and adol escent’s self-reported adherence. Across all three diabetes-specific measures of family functioning were child perception of parental support or lack of support of the diabetes treatment regimen. McKelvey et al (1993) noted a ppropriate parent supervision of diabetes care tasks, as measured in the DFRQ, may be closely relate d to the diabetes regimen guidance/control dimension of the DFBS. The assessment of supportive and unsupportive parent behaviors in the DFBC focuses on the same dimension of parent involvement in the disease treatment. Children who perceive their parent s as supportive of thei r diabetes care have better metabolic control; children who percei ve parents as nega tive, critical, and unsupportive of their diabetes management ar e in poorer metabolic control, as are families where no one takes responsibility for diabetes management. While the relationships of the DFBC, DFRQ, and DFBS to metabolic control are small, in several cases, the diabetes-specific family factors ex plain larger percentage s of the variance in metabolic control than adherence measures (SCAI, DSMP, 24-hour recall). Lewin et al (2006) suggest that when examined conc urrently, these measures may delineate a construct of diabetes specific family fact ors related to adherence. Diabetes-specific

PAGE 24

14 family functioning is a critical construct to evaluate to optimize metabolic control and adherence outcomes (Anderson et al., 1997). Externalizing, Diabetes Specific Family Functioning, Adherence and Metabolic Control The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) wa s first published in 1978 (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). The CBCL has become a wide ly used standardized parent report questionnaire for 4to 18-year-olds that exhibits excellent ps ychometric properties (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL provides sepa rate scores for Internalizing and Externalizing. These broad band psychological pr oblems have been identified repeatedly in multivariate analyses (Achenbach, 1991) a nd reflect a distinction between depressed, fearful, and inhibited over-c ontrolled behaviors known as Internalizing, and aggressive, oppositional, and antisocial under controlled behaviors known as Externalizing. There exists very little work that has exam ined the relationships between child psychopathology, family functioning, adherenc e and metabolic control. Our clinical experience has led us to hypothesize that externalizing behavior has important relationships to diabetes specific family functioning and adherence in explaining metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Summary Recent research has found that more intens ive diabetes regimens are related to better metabolic control and that worse metabolic control leads to increased diabetes related complications at an ear lier age of onset in children and adolescents. Accordingly, physicians have prescribed increasingly mo re demanding regimens. Clinicians believe that the extent to which patients follow treatment recommendati ons is integral in producing positive health outcomes. However, most existing psychological research only

PAGE 25

15 weakly supports these assumptions. Prior research suggests the absence of a strong relationship between behavior a nd health status in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methodological problems (e.g. the meas urement of adherence, the complexity and quality of the medical regimen, disease sp ecific verses general measures of family functioning, and the reliability of health-status indicators) are often cited as explanations for these findings. Additionally, multiple st udies fail to show strong relationships between individual diabetes-specific family factors related to a dherence and metabolic control. McKelvey and colleagues (1993) sugges ted that incorporating the DFBC and DFRQ scales with the DFBS might demons trate a stronger connection between family adherence and HbA1c. To date, only Lewin and colleagues (2006) have examined the relationship between this co mbination of diabetes-specific family-related adherence variables and metabolic contro l with encouraging results. Lewin et al (2006) found 34% of the variance in metabolic control was accoun ted for by diabetes-specific family factors after accounting for demographic variables. Further they hypothesized and successfully demonstrated a mediation model wherein adhe rence partially mediated the relationship between a composite of diabetes-specific fa mily variables, and metabolic control. Limited research has examined the contributi on of children’s extern alizing behavior to metabolic control. The first aim of this i nvestigation was to rep licate the findings of Lewin et al (2006) by accounti ng for a significant portion of the variance in metabolic control through the use of diab etes-specific measures of fa mily functioning related to disease management. The second aim was to replicate a model wherein adherence partially mediates the relationship between diabetes-specific family variables and

PAGE 26

16 metabolic control. The third aim was to examine a proposed mediation model wherein family factors mediate the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control. Our fourth and final aim was to examine a pr oposed mediation model wherein adherence mediates the relationship between exte rnalizing and metabolic control.

PAGE 27

17 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Question 1: Family Factors Predicting Metabolic Control Does a combination of diabetes-specific fa mily functioning measures predict significant variance in metabolic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes? Metabolic control will be predicted by the following adherence-related family variables: both parent and child deny respons ibility for diabetes care tasks (DFRQ); child perception of the parent providing guidance /control over diabetes care (DFBS); child perception of parental warmth and caring surrounding the diabetes treatment regimen (DFBS), and child perceptions of parental nagging, critical, and argumentative behavior related to diabetes management (DFBC). Question 2: Adherence Mediating between Diabetes-Specific Family Factors and Metabolic Control. Does adherence mediate the relationship betw een diabetes-specific family factors and metabolic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes? Our study tested a model that proposes that diabetes-specific family factors affect metabolic control through pathwa ys of adherence. Adherence is expected to mediate the relationship between diabetes-specific family factors and metabolic control (Figure 2-1). Question 3: Family factors mediating be tween child externalizing and metabolic control. Do diabetes-specific family factors mediat e the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control?

PAGE 28

18 Our study tested a model that proposes th at children’s exte rnalizing behaviors affect metabolic control through pathways of family factors. It is expected that child externalizing behaviors will mediate the relationship between family factors and metabolic control (Figure 2-2). Question 4: Adherence mediating child externalizing behaviors and metabolic control? Does adherence mediate the relationship be tween child externalizing and metabolic control? Finally, our study tested a model that pr oposes that child externalizing affects metabolic control through path ways of adherence. It is expected that adherence will mediate the relationship between externalizi ng behaviors and metabolic control (Figure 2-3).

PAGE 29

19 Figure 2-1. Theoretical model of adherence mediating family factors and metabolic control. Family Factors Adherence Metabolic Control

PAGE 30

20 Figure 2-2. Theoretical model of family fact ors mediating externalizing and metabolic control. Externalizing Behaviors Family Factors Metabolic Control

PAGE 31

21 Figure 2-3. Theoretical model of adheren ce mediating externa lizing and metabolic control. Externalizing Behaviors Adherence Metabolic Control

PAGE 32

22 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants and Settings Participants were 120 children with type 1 diabetes and their parents, attending an outpatient pediatric diabetes clinic affiliated with the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. The sample was composed of 51 boys and 69 girls, ages 8.25 to 18.75 ( M = 13.92, SD = 2.71). The ethnic distribution wa s 72.5% Caucasian, 15.0% African American, 10.0% Hispanic, and 2.5% repres enting other ethnic groups. More mothers (78.3%) participated in the study compared to fathers (13.3%) and other parents (8.4%). The mean family income was 46.6K w ith a standard deviation of 29.1K. Procedure Parents and children were recruited based on the following study inclusion criteria: eight to eighteen years of age, a di agnosis of type 1 diab etes for at least 6 months, living with and accompanied by their primary caretaker, no evidence of mental retardation. Of families approached, 82.8% ag reed to participate. A signed informed consent, approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida, was obtained from each participant. Both pa rents and children completed self-report questionnaires and one face-to-face structured interview while waiting for their scheduled appointment. Trained graduate or unde rgraduate psychology students conducted interviews individually with both caregiver and child of a pproximately 10-15 minutes in length. Instructions were given to both fo r completing the self-report measures. Selfreport measures were typically comple ted within 30-40 minutes. Children and

PAGE 33

23 adolescents were prompted to answer questi ons honestly and were reminded that no one else in their family would see their answer s. Blood samples for measuring HbA1c were drawn by trained clinic staff as part of each patient’s routine visit. All research assistants underwent extensiv e training with the first author in the administration of these measures, which include d: (1) attending an instructional meeting, (2) observing 3 administrations of the measur es, (3) administering the measures 3 times with in vivo observation and supervision. Measures Demographic Questionnaire Parents were administered a brief dem ographics questionnaire to assess the child’s age, sex, race, age at onset of diab etes, family structure, parental education, occupation and estimated income. Diabetes-Specific Family Measures Diabetes Family Behavior Scale (DFBS). The DFBS is a measure of perceived family support for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (Waller et al., 1986). This 60-item que stionnaire has three subscales (warmth/caring, guidance/control, and problem solving) that are used to determine the child’s overall perceptio n of family support. Scores from the guidance/control and warmth/caring subscales correlated with meta bolic control (.50 and .36, respectively), but the problem-solving subscale did not (.08). Te st-retest reliability coefficients for the warmth/caring and guidance/control subscal es are good (.79 and .83, respectively), but not so for the problem-solving subscale (.51). Analyses indicate stronger reliability with younger children (under age 13) that have been attributed to developmental differences (McKelvey, Waller, North, et al, 1993). Child ren and adolescents completed the warmth

PAGE 34

24 and caring, and the guidance and control scales of this meas ure. Overall, the DFBS has good internal consistency (alpha coefficient of 0.82). Cronbach’s in our study was acceptable ( = .74). Diabetes Family Behavi or Checklist (DFBC). This instrument is a measure of bot h supportive and non-supp ortive behaviors by the family and their effects on the child’s di abetes self-care regimen (Schafer et al., 1986). This forced-response, 16-item scale is de signed for ages 12 to 64 and consists of a summative response scale from 1 (never) to 5 (at least once a day). Summary scores are generated for both the positive/supportive and negative/unsupportive domains. A positive summary score can range from 9 to 45 and th e negative summary scale can range from 7 to 35. Schafer and colleagues (1986) found that negative behaviors of family members reported by the adults with diabetes were in versely correlated with adherence (glucose testing, diet, and insulin injec tions). Parents and, children an d adolescents completed this measure. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ra nge from .67 to .80 for the positive/supportive scale and .74 to .82 for the negative /unsupportive scale (S chafer, personal communication, 1998). Internal consistency for this sample was acceptable ( = .64). Diabetes Family Responsibili ty Questionnaire (DFRQ). The Diabetes Family Responsibility Ques tionnaire is used to assess the family sharing of responsibilities for diabetes trea tment (Anderson et al., 1990). Both the parent and child independently complete this m easure consisting of reading 17 statements concerning diabetes management tasks and indicating which family member has the responsibility for the specific task. A parent-child dyadic scor e is calculated to determine

PAGE 35

25 patterns of agreement and disagreement within the dyad. Factor analys es of this 17-item measure indicate three domains of 1) general h ealth management tasks, 2) regimen tasks, and 3) social presentation of diabetes. Intern al consistencies for the three subscales were acceptable, ranging from .69 to .85 (Anderson et al., 1990). For this sample internal consistency was acceptable ( = .75). Child Behavior Child Behavior Checklist Achenbach and Edelbrock first published the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in 1978 and 1979. The CBCL has become a widely used standardized 118-item parent report questionnaire for 4–18 years olds that exhibits excellent ps ychometric properties (Achenbach, 1991). It was designed to assess the be havioral problems and social competencies of children 4 to 18 years of age. The CBCL groups 20 competence items into 11 Problem Scales (including eight Syndrome Scales ) and four Competence Scales The CBCL also yields two broadband higher order psychopathology scales, internalizing and externalizing The CBCL is widely used in both clinical and research settings because of its demonstrated reliability and validity, ease of administration and scoring, and applicability to clinical, nonclinical, and cross-cu ltural samples (Achenbach, 1991; Cohen, Gotlieb, Kershner, & Wehrspann, 1985; Drotar, Stein, & Perrin, 1995; Sandberg, Meyer-Bahlburg, &Yager, 1991). Cronbach’s in our study were strong ( = .94) Measurement of Adherence The DSMP is a refined version of the SC AI (Harris et al., 2000). The DSMP is a structured interview, consisting of 23 que stions, with an administration time of approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Questions asse ss five areas of diabetes management, including: insulin administration/dose adju stment, blood-glucose monitoring, exercise,

PAGE 36

26 diet, and management of hypoglycemia. To minimize response bias, the interviewer begins with a statement indicating that imperfect diabetes management is common. Additionally, tasks for which nonadherence is more readily admitted (e.g. exercise) are assessed first. Investigator s found good internal consistenc y (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76) and inter-observer agreement (94%). Parents and children were interviewed separately. Internal consistency was found to be acceptable in our study for both parents ( = .86) and children ( = .65). Measure of Metabolic Control During regularly scheduled appointments, patients in the Outpatient Diabetes Clinic have their HbA1c routinely checked as part of their normal check-up. Blood samples were analyzed using a Bayer DC A 2000+. HbA1c for i ndividuals without diabetes typically ranges between 4%-6.5% on this instrument.

PAGE 37

27 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Preliminary analyses were conducted to test for relations between demographic variables and study variables (HbA1c, adherenc e, and family functioning) for purposes of control in subsequent hierarchical multiple regression. HbA1c was correlated with child’s age ( r = .23, p < .01), duration with diabetes ( r = .27, p < .01), and family income ( r = -.16, p = .09). Child age was significantly correlated to the DFBC ( r = .25, p < .01), to the DFBS guidance and cont rol subscale ( r = -.57, p < .01), and the parent DSMP ( r = -.37, p < .01). Family income was found to be signif icantly correlated to both the child ( r = .22, p < .05) and parent DSMP ( r = .21, p < .05). Duration of diabetes wa s significantly related to HbA1c ( r = .27, p < .01) and to parent DSMP ( r = -.26, p < .01). All other demographic variables were not significan tly related to measures of diabetes-specific family functioning, parent reports of child externa lizing, or to reports of adherence. Table 4-1 provides the sample characteris tics on sex and ethnicity and Table 4-2 reports means, standard deviations, and ra nges for child’s age, HbA1c, duration with diabetes, and income. The mean age and duratio n with diabetes for children in our study was approximately 13.92 ( SD = 2.7) and 4.80 ( SD = 3.81) years, respectively. Mean income was 46.0K (SD = 29.1K), and the mean HbA1c for the sample was 8.93% ( SD = 1.99%), which is in the elevated range. No sex differences were found in HbA1c ( t (120) = 1.17, p = 0.19, mean for boys: 9.18% ( SD = 1.77%); mean for girls: 8.75% ( SD = 2.13%). Likewise, no sex-differences were iden tified on measures of diabetes-specific

PAGE 38

28 family functioning or self-report of adherence ( = .05). Intercorrelations between variables are found in table 3. All subseque nt regression analyses were assessed for collinearity by calculating tolerance and va riance inflation f actors (VIF) and no significant collinearity was identified (Bowerman and O’Connell, 1990). Study Aim 1: Regression of Metabolic Co ntrol (HbA1c) on Family Functioning and Adherence To examine the relation between multiple measures of diabetes-specific family factors and metabolic control, we conducted a hierarchical multiple linear regression. We expected that when examined simultaneousl y, measures of adhere nce-related diabetesspecific family factors would be predictive of significant variance in metabolic control. To control for the influence of the child’s ag e, family income, and duration with diabetes, we entered these variables into the regressi on equation in steps 1 and 2. To partition out the variance shared by duration of diabetes and child’s age these variables were controlled in separate blocks, with child age and estimate of family income controlled in the first block and duration of diabetes cont rolled in the second block. Combined, child age and family income accounted for 6.7% of the variance in metabolic control, F (2, 102) = 3.69, p < .05. The unique variance accounted for by duration of diabetes was 5.3%, F (3, 101) = 4.62, p < .01. Considering that there we re no a priori suppositions regarding the magnitude of the relationship between each family functioning variable and metabolic control, each family predictor was entered simultaneously into block 3 of the regression. Combined, the four diabetes-spe cific family functioning variables (i.e. parental warmth and caring (DFBS), guidance and control (DFBS), cr itical and negative parenting (DFBC), and no-responsibility for the treatment regimen (DFRQ), explain an additional 13.3% of the variance in metabolic control (HbA1c), F (7, 97) = 4.70, p < .01.

PAGE 39

29 Lastly, child and parent report of adhere nce were entered into the model, which combined accounted for 18.6% of the variance in meta bolic control, F (9, 95) = 8.27, p < .01. All together, the model predicted 43.9% of the vari ance in metabolic control (HbA1c). The final model demonstrated signi ficant contributions from child report of critical, negative, unsupportiv e parents, and parent report of adherence (Table 4-4). Study Aim 2: Does Adherence Mediate the Relationship Between Diabetes-specific Family Factors and Metabolic Control? To determine whether child report of a dherence accounted for unique variance in metabolic control beyond that of parent report, a regression e quation was calculated controlling for demographic variables in blocks one and two, with parent and child report of adherence entered in the third and fourth blocks resp ectively. Parent report of adherence explained 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control (HbA1c), F (4, 101) = 16.48, p < .01. Child report failed to account for significant variance in metabolic control above and beyond that accounted for by pare nt report, explaining only .6% of the variance in metabolic control. The complete model for both parent and child reports of adherence, while controlling for demographic variables, accounted for 40.1% of the variance in metabolic contro l (See table 4-5). Since warm th and caring, guidance and control, lack of responsibility, and child repor t of adherence, failed to add significantly to the model in this and previous analyses, th ese variables were excl uded from subsequent analyses. Next, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for mediation were followed to test the influence of the remaining diabetes-sp ecific family factor (DFBC) on metabolic control via adherence. The following crit eria are necessary for mediation: (I) the predictor (DFBC) should be significantly asso ciated with the outco me (HbA1c), (II) the

PAGE 40

30 predictor should be significantly associated with the mediator (adherence), (III) the mediator should be associated with the outco me variable (metabolic control), and (IV) lastly, the addition of the me diator to the full model s hould significantly reduce the relationship between the pred ictor and outcome variable. Baron and Kenny’s first through third criteria were met in previous analys es, see table 3. To examine Baron and Kenny’s next criteria, family functi oning (DFBC) was entered after demographic variables, and parent report of adherence was entered into the final block of the regression. The family functioning variable (DFBC) was found to account for 12.6% of variance in metabolic control (HbA1c), while parent report of adherence (DSMP) added 18.6% to the model. Finally, family functioning was entered into the model while cont rolling for adherence and demographic variables. The final m odel accounted for 40.2% of the variance in metabolic control (Table 4-6). To examine the significance of change in the path coefficient, a Sobel’s z-scor e (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = -6.70, p < .001, and was found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny’s criteria for mediation. The path coefficient between family factors and meta bolic control remained significant while controlling for adherence, ther eby indicating partial mediatio n. Standardized coefficient of Family Factors on Metabolic Control equals .204 for direct and .201 for indirect effect (figure 4-4). Study Aim 3: Regression Analysis to dete rmine if Family Factors (DFBC) mediates the relationship between Externalizing and Metabolic Control (HbA1c). Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for me diation were followed to test the influence of child externaliz ing behaviors on metabolic c ontrol (HbA1c) via diabetes specific family factors (DFBC). Child external izing was entered into the regression, after

PAGE 41

31 controlling for demographic variables, and was found to account for 5.6% of the variance in metabolic control, F = 5.40, p < .001. Next, family factors (DFBC) were entered into the mode l and were found to account for 8.6% of the varian ce in metabolic control, F = 7.11, p < .001. Finally, child externalizing was entered into the model while controlling for family factors (DFBC) and was found to account for a non-significant portion of the variance in metabolic control, meeting criteria for full mediation (Table 4-7) To examine the significance of change in the path coefficient, a Sobel’s zscore (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = 2.67, p < .01, and was found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny’s criteria for mediation. The path coefficient between externalizing and meta bolic control became non-significant while controlling for family factor s, thereby indicating full me diation. The standardized coefficients of externalizing on HbA1c equals .161 for direct, and .110 for indirect effect (figure 4-5). Study Aim 4: Regression Analysis to Determine if Adherence (Parent DSMP) Mediates the Relationship Between Externalizing Behaviors and Metabolic Control (HbA1c). Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for me diation were followed to test the influence of child externaliz ing behaviors on metabolic control via adherence. Child externalizing was entered into the regression, after controlling for demographic variables, and was found to account for 5.6% of the variance in metabolic control, F = 5.40, p < .01. Next, parent reports of adherence (DSMP) we re entered into the model and were found to account for 22.2% of the varian ce in metabolic control, F = 13.24, p < .001. Finally, externalizing was entered into the model while controlling for adherence and accounted for a non-significant portion of the variance in metabol ic control, indicating full

PAGE 42

32 mediation (Table 4-8). To examine the signif icance of change in the path coefficient, Sobel’s z-score (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = 3.66, p < .001, and was found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny’s criteria for mediation. Since the path coefficient between externalizing and me tabolic control was reduced to a non-significant effect while co ntrolling for adherence, full mediation was indicated. Standardized coefficient of DFBC on HbA1c equals .059 for direct and .212 for indirect effect (figure 4-6).

PAGE 43

33 Figure 4-1. The relationship between fam ily factors (DFBC) and metabolic control (HbA1c) partially mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP). Type of Mediation ----Partial Sobel z-value ------------6.69526, p = .000001 Standardized coefficient of DFBC on HbA1c: Direct: .204 Indirect: .201 .405*** Independent Variable: DFBC (.204*) Outcome Variable: HbA1c .374*** -.614*** (-.538***) Mediating Variable: Adherence

PAGE 44

34 Figure 4-2. The relationship between extern alizing and metabolic control (HbA1c) fully mediated by family factors (DFBC). Type of Mediation ---Full Sobel z-value ---------2.671389, p = .007554 Standardized coefficient of Externalizing on HbA1c: Direct: .161 Indirect: .110 .271** Independent Variable: Externalizing (.161) Outcome Variable: HbA1c .310*** .405*** (.355***) Mediating Variable: DFBC

PAGE 45

35 Figure 4-3. The relationship between externaliz ing and metabolic control (HbA1c) fully mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP). Type of Mediation ---Full Sobel z-value ----------3.66278, p = .000249 Standardized coefficien t of Externalizing on HbA1c: Direct: .059 Indirect: .212 .271** Independent Variable: Externalizing (.059) Outcome Variable: HbA1c -.358*** -.614*** (-.593***) Mediating Variable: Adherence

PAGE 46

36 Table 4-1. Demographic characteristics Category N Percentage Sex Male 51 42.5 Female 69 57.5 Ethnicity Caucasian 87 72.5 African American 18 15.0 Hispanic 12 10.0 Other 3 2.5

PAGE 47

37 Table 4-2. Means and Standa rd Deviations for Age, HbA1c, Duration of Diabetes, and Income. Mean SD Minimum Maximum HbA1c (%) 8.93 1.99 5.00 >14.00 Age 13.92 2.71 8.25 18.75 Duration (Months) 57.54 45.71 6.00 270.00 Income 46005.06 29089.61 6000.00 155000.00

PAGE 48

38 Table 4-3. Intercorrelations among HbA1c, Di abetes Family Measures, Adherence, and Externalizing. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 HbA1c. -.378** -.614** -.113 -.081 -.006 .405** .271** 2 Child adherence report .501** .108 .073 .004 -.279* -.269** 3 Parent adherence report .179* .128 .006 -.374** -.358** 4 Warmth and caring .193* -.049 -.324** -.320** 5 Guidance and control .193* -.225* -.095 6 No responsibility .119 .005 7 Critical parenting .310** 8 Child externalizing *p <. 05, **p < .01

PAGE 49

39 Table 4-4. Hierarchical Regr ession Analysis Predicting Hb A1c from Diabetes-Related Family Factors and Adherence. Step Variables R2 R2 F 1 .067 .067 3.69* Child Age .066 Income -.023 2 .121 .053 6.10* Duration of diabetes .124* 3 .253 .133 4.32** Warmth and caring (DFBS) .058 Guidance and control (DFBS) .062 Lack of responsibility (DFRQ) -.018 Critical parenting (DFBC) .224** 4 .439 .186 15.74** Child reported adherence (DSMP) -.058 Parent reported adherence (DSMP) -.466** All standardized regression coefficients are from the final block of the equation. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

PAGE 50

40 Table 4-5. Hierarchical Regr ession Analysis Predicting HbA1c from Parent and Child Report of Adherence. Step Variables R2 R2 F 1 .067 .067 3.69* Child Age .066 Income -.023 2 .121 .053 6.10* Duration of diabetes .124 3 .395 .274 45.79* Parent report of adherence -.520 4 .401 .006 1.05 Child report of adherence All standardized regression coefficients are from the final block of the equation. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

PAGE 51

41 Table 4-6. Mediation Regression Analysis Pr edicting HbA1c: Adhe rence Mediating the Relationship between Family Factor s (DFBC) and Metabolic Control (HbA1c): Final Block of the Regression. *p < .05, ** p < .01 Step Variables R2R2F 1 .067 .067 3.69* Child Age .030 Income -.025 2 .121 .053 6.10* Duration of diabetes .126 3 .371 .274 45.79** Parent report of adherence (DSMP) -.492** 4 .402 .035 6.20** Critical parenting (DFBC) .206

PAGE 52

42 Table 4-7. Mediation Regres sion Analysis Predicting HbA1 c: Family Factors (DFBC) Mediating the Relationship Between Child Externalizing and Metabolic Control (HbA1c): Final Bl ock of the Regression. *p < .05, ** p < .01 Step Variables R2R2F 1 .067 .067 3.69* Child Age .103 Income -.085 2 .121 .053 6.10* Duration of diabetes .215* 3 .245 .125 16.72** Family Factors (DFBC) .320** 4 .262 .017 2.28 Externalizing (CBCL) .138

PAGE 53

43 Table 4-8. Mediation Regressi on Analysis Predicting HbA1c : Adherence Mediating the Relationship Between Child Externaliz ing and Metabolic Control (HbA1c): Final Block of the Regression. *p < .05, ** p < .0Step Variables R2R2F 1 .067 .067 3.69* Child Age .066 Income -.023 2 .121 .053 6.10* Duration of diabetes .124 3 .371 .274 45.79** Parent report of adherence (DSMP) -.492** 4 .398 .003 .55 Externalizing (CBCL) .062

PAGE 54

44 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Interpretation of Results The purpose of our study was to examine how behavioral va riables including adherence to the diabetes treatment regimen, child externalizing, and family functioning specific to diabetes management related to me tabolic control. First, we investigated the relationship between a combination of diabet es-related family factors and metabolic control. Regression analysis in dicated that, taken together, di abetes-related family factors accounted for 13.3% of the variance in me tabolic control afte r controlling for demographic variables. In addition, it is im portant to note that reports of adherence explained significant variance in metabolic cont rol. Our study replicated Lewin et al’s findings of diabetes related family fact ors and adherence significantly predicting metabolic control. Another goal of our study wa s to replicate adherence mediating the relationship between diabetes-specific family factors a nd metabolic control. The proposed mediating model suggests that negative family functioni ng processes have a deleterious impact on children’s adherence behaviors and subsequent metabolic control. This model posits that the child’s perception of critical and nega tive parenting around th e diabetes treatment regimen is related to adherence to a treat ment regimen. Overall, children who reported more negative and critical relationships w ith their parents were in worse metabolic control and such relationships are mediated by poor adherence. We believe it is likely that there is a reciprocal relationship between critical parenting and poor diabetes

PAGE 55

45 regimen adherence, with families becoming tr apped in a coercive cycle or struggle for control (Patterson, 1974). An adolescent’s nonadherent behaviors may elicit parent criticism, which in turn can lead to further adolescent rebellion toward adherence. Regression analysis supported our third hypothesis that adherence mediates the relationship between externalizing and metabol ic control. The mediating model suggests that children’s externalizing behaviors have deleterious a ffects on children’s adherence behaviors and subsequent metabolic control. This model suggests that externalizing behaviors interfere with good metabolic cont rol and compliance w ith the prescribed treatment regimen. Overall, children with highe r reported externalizing behaviors were in worse metabolic control. Parent al difficulty dealing with exte rnalizing behaviors such as stubbornness and arguing, are unlikely to help with a child’s adherence. Poor adherence may fuel the parent and child battleground. Difficulties with adherence to complex and demanding treatment regimens may exacerbate general child oppositionality and further thwart any support parents might provide in management aimed at better metabolic control. Finally, regression analysis supported our fourth hypothesis; th at family factors mediate the relationship between externalizi ng and metabolic control. The mediating model suggests that externalizing is related to children’s perceptions of critical and negative parenting around diabetes and its re lationship to poor meta bolic control. This model suggests that parent reported externa lizing behaviors are li nked to child reported perceptions of negative parent ing that includes criticizi ng, nagging, and arguing with the child about diabetes related treatment tasks, leading to worsened metabolic control that are shown, in aim three, to be largely thr ough pathways of adherence. Overall children

PAGE 56

46 with higher parent reported externalizing be haviors were in worse metabolic control. Child externalizing behaviors ma y precipitate reciprocal nega tive behaviors from parents, leading to increased family conflict that disrupts adherence proc esses and subsequent metabolic control. It was shown that younge r children who experienced parental warmth had improved metabolic control (D avis et al, 2001), suggesting the reciprocal to be true. Our study did not identify a significant a ssociation between child ratings of parental guidance and control and metabolic control. However, given our sample mean age of 13.92 years, this finding is not incons istent with the exta nt literature, which suggests that in adolescent populations the relationship between parental guidance/control and HbA1c is weaker (McK elvey et al., 1993; Waller et al., 1986). As most adolescents strive for autonomy, parent s may have less influence regarding whether or not they attempt to provide guidance and c ontrol. This pattern suggests that while the DFBS Guidance and Control Scale may have examined content independent from the other scales, the construct was not related to metabolic control with this sample. Additionally, our study did not find that the DFBS warmth and caring or responsibility subscale was significantly rela ted to metabolic control. Consistent with Lewin et al (2006), significant relati onships were found between children reporting more critical, negative, un supportive relationships with their parents (regarding their diabetes management) and wo rse metabolic control. Also, parent and child reports of adherence were strongly associated with metabolic control. Child report of adherence did not significantly add to th e variance accounted for in metabolic control by parent report. Parent report of adhere nce accounted for 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control, above and beyond demographi c variables. However, the relationship is

PAGE 57

47 reduced to 18.6% when family factors are controlled. The complete model did account for 43.9% of the variance in metabolic control while controlling for demographic variables. Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions Before implications of our study and speculations on future research are discussed, it is important to note limitations of our study. Due to th e correlational nature of the data, causal relations hips cannot be implied. Howe ver, ethically, a controlled analysis could not be implemented since children cannot be randomly assigned to supportive and unsupportive families. Secondly, fa milies reporting to this clinic are largely of low economic status and sponsored by state-funded insurance (State of Florida Children’s Medical Services). Results may not generalize to higher SES families. Third, while children are informed that no parent or physician will see their results and are encouraged to be as accurate as possible, there is the potential for report-bias on the questionnaires and interview. Finally, administration of general family functioning measures along with diabetes-specific quest ionnaires would have allowed for more comprehensive comparisons with other similar studies. Our study identified that reports of a dherence are signifi cantly related to metabolic control. The use of adherence inte rviews may an important method to identify those patients who are at risk for poor metabo lic control. Such a preventative approach may lead to more timely interventions, avoidi ng some of the risk associated with poorly controlled diabetes. A reduction in HbA1c by 1% was associated with a 15 to 30% decrease in the risk of microvascular a nd neuropathic complications of diabetes, highlighting the significance of this diffe rence (Diabetes Control and Complications Research Group, 1987; ADA, 2003).

PAGE 58

48 It is not a new concept, in a clinical context, that child behaviors may have important implications for medi cal treatment, however an evidence-based examination of this concept through research is still important. Our study hi ghlighted the importance of considering children’s externalizing behaviors as they relate to other family factors, children’s adherence to their treatment regimens and metabolic control. Importantly, adherence interviews used in our study can be completed in a clinical setting, require minima l training to score and administer, and need little time to complete. These brief screeners can identify fami lies for behavioral heal th interventions. Additionally, as there is variation in the comp lexity of the prescribed treatment regimen that is largely clinically dete rmined by the patient’s ability to manage such regimens, it is logical to posit that screening for behavioral suitability to the more complex regimens would increase the success of more complex regimens. Our data suggest that family behavior is significantly related to a child’s health status, especially when multiple aspects of family functioning related to regimen behaviors are considered in making the assessm ent. Therefore, when identifying barriers to adherence, clinicians should assess child perceptions of parental negativity, and child externalizing behaviors in addition to a ssessing disease management behaviors. The results of our study should also be considered during interventions for children with poor metabolic control. Specificall y, behavioral family-systems such as that developed by Wysocki et al, (2006) seem most beneficial for these problems. Instead of focusing exclusively on improving specific adhe rence behaviors, therapy should address instrumental processes, such as improvi ng family communication patterns and reducing factors that promote and mainta in argumentative interaction patterns specific to diabetes

PAGE 59

49 management. Parent training should facilitate parenting described by Baumrind (1991) as authoritative rather than aut horitarian, indulgent or neglec tful. In addition to a solid understanding of issues surroundi ng diabetes treatment, therap ists require process skills to optimally address adherence problems in the context of improving family dynamics related to diabetes management. It is appropriate to conclude our st udy by reviewing the powerful finding that parent report of adherence e xplained 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control, after controlling for demographic variables, wit hout directly measuring diabetes knowledge. Congruent with clinical observations, adhere nce was highly related to metabolic control, highlighting the importance of clinical a ssessments of regimen-specific adherence behaviors and family factors to optimize metabolic control. Future research should further examine the family functioning, adherence, and metabolic control relations, identified in the mediation model from our study. For example, this model may contribute to interv ention studies of thes e relationships. Given that improved health status and reduced diab etes-related complicati ons are the clinical goals, the aim should be to develop family m odels of adherence that optimize metabolic control. Future analyses should examine other f actors that might relate to diabetes family functioning. For example, parents who alrea dy perceive themselves as overwhelmed might be less likely to be supportive of a nd responsible for thei r child’s diabetes treatment regimen. Other examples include parent and child, a nxiety and depression. Lastly, as interactive patterns of behavior are unlikely to be unidirectional, future studies should examine potential reciprocal interac tion patterns between family variables, adherence behaviors, and metabolic cont rol that are specific to diabetes.

PAGE 60

50 REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist / 4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Verm ont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, CS. (1978). The Child Behavior Profile. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 478488. American Diabetes Association. (2003). Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care, 25, S33-S50. Anderson, B. J., Auslander, W. F., Jung, K. C., Miller, J. P., & Santiago, J. V. (1990). Assessing family sharing of diabetes responsibilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 477-492. Anderson, B. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1993). Family c ontext and compliance beha vior in chronically ill children. In N. A. Krasnegor, L. Epstei n, S. B. Johnson, & S. J. Yaffer (Eds.), Developmental Aspects of Health Compliance Behavior (pp. 77-89). Hi llsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, B. J., Ho, J., Brackett, J., & Laffel, L. M. B. (1999). An office-based intervention to maintain parent-adolescent teamwork in diabetes management: Impact on parent involvement, family conflict, and subsequent glycemic control. Diabetes Care, 22, 713720. Anderson, B. J., & Laffel, L. M. B. (1997). Beha vioral and psychosocial research with schoolaged children with type 1 diab etes. Diabetes Spectrum, 10, 281-285. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderato r-mediator variable di stinction in social psychological research: Conceptu al, strategic, and statistica l considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1173-1182. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parentin g style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Earl y Adolescence, 11, 56-95. Cohen, N.J., Gotlieb, H., Kershner, J., & Wehrspann, W. (1985). Concurrent validity of the internalizing and externalizing profile patterns of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 724–728. Davis, C.L., Delamater, A.M., Shaw, K.H., La Greca, A.M., Eidson, M.S., Perez, M.S., Rodriquez, J.E., & Nemery, R. 2001. Parenting styl es, regimen adherence, and glycemic control in 4to 10-year-old children with diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 26 126-129.

PAGE 61

51 Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1986). Di abetes control and complications trial: Design and methodologic considerations for the feasibility phase. Diabetes, 35, 530-545. Diabetes Control and Complicat ions Trial Research Group. (1987) Results of the Feasibility Study. Diabetes Care, 10, 1-19. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Re search Group. (1993). The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development a nd progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 977-986. Diabetes Control and Complicati ons Trial Research Group. (1994). E ffect of intensive diabetes treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Di abetes control and comp lications trial. The Journal of Pediatrics, 125, 177-188. Drotar, D., Stein, R.E., & Perrin, E.C. (1995). Methodologi cal issues in using the Child Behavior Checklist and its related instrume nts in clinical psychology resear ch. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 184–192. Engelgau, M. M., & Geiss, L. S. (2000). The burden of diabetes mellitus. In J. L. Leahy, N. G. Clark, & W. T. Cefalu (Eds.), Medical Management of Diabetes Mellitus (pp. 1-17). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. EURODIAB ACE Study Group. (2000). Va riation and trends in incidence of childhood diabetes in Europe. Lancet, 355, 873-876. Feingold, R. R. & Funk, J. L. (1997). Disorders of the endocrine pancreas. In McPhee, S. J., Lingappa, V. R., Ganong, W. F., and Lange, J. D. (Eds.), Path ophysiology of disease (pp. 423469). Stanford, CT: Appleton and Lange. Freund, A., Johnson, S.B., Silverstein, J., & Thomas J. (1991). Assessing daily management of childhood diabetes using 24-hr recall interv iews: Reliability and stability. Health Psychology, 10, 200-208. Geffken, G.R., Lewis, C., Johnson, S.B., Silver stein, J.H., Rosenbloom, A.L., & Monaco, L. (1997) Residential treatment for youngsters w ith difficult to manage Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Pediatri c Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10, 517-527. Glasgow, R. E., McCaul, K. D., & & Schafer, L. C. (1987). Self-care behaviors and glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. Jour nal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 399-412. Hanson, C. L., De Guire, M. J., Schinkle, A. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Burghen, G. A. (1992).

PAGE 62

52 Comparing Social Learning and Fa mily Systems Correlates of Adaptation in Youths with IDDM. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 555-572. Hanson, C. L., De Guire, M. J., Schinkel, A. M., Kolterman, O. G., Goodman, J. P., & Buckingham, B. A. (1996). Self-c are behaviors in insulin-depende nt diabetes: evaluative tools and their associations with glycemic cont rol. Journal of Pedi atric Psychology, 21, 467-482. Hanson, C. L., Henggeler, S. W., & Burghen, G. A. (1987). Social competence and parental support as mediators of the link between stress and metabolic control in adolescents with insulindependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 529-533. Harris M.A., Wysocki T., Sadler M., Wilkinson K., Harvey L.M., Buckloh L.M., Mauras N., & White N.H. (2000). Validation of a structured in terview for the assessment of diabetes selfmanagement. Diabetes Care, 23, 1301-1304. Hauser, S. T., Jacobson, A. M., Lavori, P., Wolfs dorf, J. I., Herskowitz, R. D., Milley, J. E., Bliss, R., Wertlieb, D., & Stein, J. (1990). A dherence among children and adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus over a f our-year longitudinal follow-up: II. Immediate and long-term linkages with the family milieu. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 527542. Haynes, R. B. (1979). Introduction. In R. B. Hayn es, D. W. Taylor, & D. L. Sackett (Eds.), Compliance in health care (pp. 1-10). Baltim ore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Johnson, S. B. (1992). Methodical issues in diabetes research. Di abetes Care, 15, 1658-1667. Johnson, S. B. (1993). Chronic diseases of childhood: Assessing compliance with complex medical regimens. In N. A. Krasnegor, L. Ep stein, S. B. Johnson, & S. J. Yaffer (Eds.), Developmental Aspects of Health Compliance Behavior (pp. 77-89). Hi llsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Johnson, S. B. (1994). Health behavior and health status: Concepts, met hods, and applications. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 19, 129-141. Johnson, S. B., Kelly, M., Henretta, J. C., C unningham, W. R., Tomer, A., Johnson, S. B., Silverstein, J., Rosenbloom, A., Carter, R., & Cunningham, W. (1986). Assessing daily management in childhood diabetes. Health Psychology, 9, 493-501. Johnson, S. B., Kelly, M., Henretta, J. C., Cunningha m, W. R., Tomer, A., & Silverstein, J. H. (1992). A longitudinal analysis of adherence and health status in childhood diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 537-553. Kavanagh, D. J., Gooley, S., & Wilson, P. H. ( 1993). Prediction of adherence and control in diabetes. Journal of Beha vioral Medicine, 16, 509-522.

PAGE 63

53 Kovacs, M., Goldston, D., Obrosky, S., & Iyengar, S. (1992). Prevalence and predictors of pervasive noncompliance with medical treat ment among youths with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American A cademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 1112-1119. La Greca, A. M. (1990). Issues in adherence w ith pediatric regimens. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 423-436. Leonard, B. J., Yuh-Pyng, J., Savik, K., Plumbo, P. M., & Christensen, R. (2002). Psychosocial factors associated with levels of metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 17, 28-37. Lewin, A. B., Heidgerken, A. D., Geffken, G. R., Williams, L. B., Storch, E. A., Gelfand, K. M., & Silverstein, J. H. (2006). The relation between family factors and metabolic control: The role of diabetes adherence. Jour nal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 174-183 Liss, D. S., Waller, D. A., Kennard, B. D., Mc Intire, D., Capra, P., & Stephens, J. (1998). Psychiatric illness and family support in children and adolescents with diabetic ketoacidosis: A controlled study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 536-544. McKelvey, J., Waller, D. A., North, A. J., Marks, J. F., Schreiner, B., Travis, L. B., & Murphy, J. N. III. (1993). Reliability and validity of the Diabetes Family Behavior Scale. The Diabetes Educator, 19, 125-132. McNabb, W. L. (1997). Adherence in diabetes: can we define it and can we measure it? Diabetes Care, 20, 215-218. Miller-Johnson, S., Emery, R. E., Marvin, R. S., Clarke, W., Lovinger, R., & Martin, M. (1994). Parent-child relationships and the management of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 603-610. National Diabetes Data Group. ( 1995). Diabetes in America. 2d ed. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Di abetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIH publication no. 95-1468. Northam, E. A., Matthews, L. K., Anderson, P. J., Cameron, F. J., & Werther, G.A. (2005). Psychiatric morbidity and health outcome in Type 1 diabetes – perspectives from a prospective longitudinal study. Diabetic Medicine, 22 152-157 Notkins, A. L., & Lernmark, A. (2001). Autoimm une type 1 diabetes: resolved and unresolved issues. Journal of Clinical Investigation 108, 1247-1252. Onkamo, P., Vaananen, S., Karyonen, M., Tuom ilehto, J. (1999). Worldwide increase in

PAGE 64

54 incidence of Type 1 diabetes the analysis of the data on published incidence trends. Diabetologia, 42, 1395-1403. Patterson, G.R. (1974). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. Mash, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds .), Behavior modification and families (pp.267316). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Sandberg, D.E., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F., & Yager, T.J. (1991). The Child Behavior Checklist nonclinical standardization samples: Should they be utilized as norms? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 124–134. Schafer, L. C., Glasgow, R. E., McCaul, K. D., & Dreher, M. (1983). Adherence to IDDM regimens: Relationship to psychosocial variable s and metabolic control. Diabetes Care, 6, 493498. Schafer, L. C., McCaul, K. D., & Glasgow, R. E. (1986). Supportive and nonsupportive family behaviors: Relationships to adhe rence and metabolic control in persons with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 9, 179-185. Skinner, H.A., Steinhauser, P.D ., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1985). The Family Assessment Measure. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, 91-105. Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and i ndirect effects in linea r structural equation m odels. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 46-64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Spevack, M., Johnson, S.B., & Riley, W. (1991). The effect of diabetes camp on adherence behaviors and glycemic control. In J.H. Johnson & S.B. Johnson (Eds.), Adva nces in child health psychology (pp. 285-292). Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Waller, D. A., Chipman, J. J., Hardy, B. W., Hi ghtower, M. S., North, A. J., Williams, S. B., & Babick, A. J. (1986). Measuring diabetes-specific family support and its relation to metabolic control: A preliminary report. Journal of th e American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25, 415-418. Wysocki, T., Linschlid, T. R., Taylor, A., Yeates K. O., Hough, B. S., & Naglieri, J. A. (1996). Deviation from developmentally appropriate self -care autonomy: Association with diabetes outcomes. Diabetes Care, 19, 119-125. Wysocki, T., Harris, M. A., Buckloh, L. M., Mert lich, D., Lochrie, A. S., Taylor, A., Sadler, M.,

PAGE 65

55 Mauras, N., & White, N. H. (2006). Effects of Be havioral Family Systems Therapy for diabetes on adolescents’ family relationships, treatment adherence, and metabolic control. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 928-938. Zhang, Y., Krzentowski, G., Albert, A., & Lefebvre, P.J. (2001). Risk of developing retinopathy in Diabetes Control and Complications Tria l type 1 diabetic patients with good or poor metabolic control. Diabetes Care, 66, 1275-1279.

PAGE 66

56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Danny C. Duke was born on October 7, 1954 in Redlands, California. The oldest of three children, he grew up living in Yucaipa and later in Placer ville, California, where he graduated from El Dorado High School in 1972. He owned a successful landscape contracting business operating in the greater Sacramento, California area from 1973 until 2004. He has been married to his lovely wi fe (Vicki) since 1973 and they have two children (Erin and Ryan). He earned his B.A degree in psychology from California State University, Sacramento in 2002. He plans to complete his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and to pursue his clinical and research in terests in pediatric psychology and teaching.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101204_AAAACT INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T20:57:56Z PACKAGE UFE0017720_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 15380 DFID F20101204_AABXGT ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH duke_d_Page_08.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d459d71d4504f0376d88a416f58b0d72
SHA-1
ef1aa90770181b1558f372bb76b299e4c003ad94
349 F20101204_AABXQN duke_d_Page_26.txt
08add44a928db5b705f64679ee9ba8e7
2358e32c69e9cf19ff74934927c8c6877355d975
31904 F20101204_AABXLQ duke_d_Page_48.jp2
0c4ffad586b79989ce35eb997deaee9c
52dea2e6021234e39450292e3c601a8454847398
103971 F20101204_AABXGU duke_d_Page_40.jpg
c894fce0ed393430461064c54f87f241
14a351198a8ad67621d86f743b18f476bcddf626
1671 F20101204_AABXQO duke_d_Page_27.txt
45808e24e4cc7a5a03c4de6a760795b2
bc2b6dee3e79152c9b0d4564fea75022f750c7e2
40484 F20101204_AABXLR duke_d_Page_49.jp2
1b556cf04a711cef4c4759dd019216a1
c816de087e23d2a7a8d0a894b6f198fd3fd36503
1051966 F20101204_AABXGV duke_d_Page_21.jp2
90868f49aed2c5c0d579d8cae539fa49
018ffb3fd3ddc8b70496456b5c3f933af35929f4
820 F20101204_AABXQP duke_d_Page_28.txt
81ec77e519828082b299026ea4625af5
9bc75f9a6fcae3fac5623f4878e70e9d6a3a5930
30302 F20101204_AABXLS duke_d_Page_50.jp2
1a237a26831ffb691425637fced6397c
5b1092ad4780d1846694927df06fe0cde72e811e
53422 F20101204_AABXGW duke_d_Page_08.jpg
f12dd9b5fd5d6d08541137139bf94840
5b757555e61c24f7de41dadb5f29a128f8d00af0
203 F20101204_AABXQQ duke_d_Page_30.txt
3992eac979e7048d9d70dba5a741c20e
470de8240bdd637e9ca10faaa584c59ffb7a4e6a
31328 F20101204_AABXLT duke_d_Page_51.jp2
b03d31b786aab8bbc38eaedac3555885
3ab25be1e49640b23dddb8081802e4c6e1618298
33450 F20101204_AABXGX duke_d_Page_60.QC.jpg
a13be3cd5ef88ab6d7929e94a74429fb
94858347e6dfeee6e05c1c39048b37a2d911f05f
197 F20101204_AABXQR duke_d_Page_31.txt
02562102b45b490f3822fc775764af58
c215f2944e103fc5d0ddfd02c97f2b240abc125d
31369 F20101204_AABXLU duke_d_Page_53.jp2
b0b2939f5df5faca8ac696d5bd00e137
c30d44d171e5a5d7e03dc316a2ee4dd63cf44a4f
85168 F20101204_AABXGY duke_d_Page_09.jp2
33f5c8f60f342d726e62f3bba9c50b37
37ad3652ad6a485eff04a0919ab55ff5b81be0fc
1795 F20101204_AABXQS duke_d_Page_32.txt
6775d7dd598a227d01c3baba1cf0c48d
c77c13d9394d948631b7190faf238b23c45779a7
94572 F20101204_AABXLV duke_d_Page_54.jp2
b6917a68cfa3bd757c494523f8e6acb9
8b247fa885afcaa9d7dd1f99a1a6384623470de7
1863 F20101204_AABXQT duke_d_Page_33.txt
44bf649226bbc989c6e89c57b0792189
213883397e7f2320ed5cab3ae860c4034a129b51
112380 F20101204_AABXLW duke_d_Page_56.jp2
931dfd29927ef34c829cdfae44202cc7
54a23c79730802d089729d39efdb3e6924cdc08c
33487 F20101204_AABXEA duke_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
819394a44cb258485a538fb864487341
55e6b9f76a8e83060276ce05b10b6976bfe937ad
131260 F20101204_AABXGZ duke_d_Page_63.jp2
b5e8b0f1ae2b823907e63d7d76d184f4
795a94cd2b1814ea71269129d16f0a688c72300c
1847 F20101204_AABXQU duke_d_Page_34.txt
885a2b7bf2a956e9abfa606524ee2132
f1431e317858b3586367a07c9eba663fa4c59935
106367 F20101204_AABXLX duke_d_Page_57.jp2
d8b9897aa885294c765e82c7d4941397
bd0c7aa2c8aecafe2d199aa5700c2743eb9d72ac
16190 F20101204_AABXEB duke_d_Page_46.jp2
b264b7da309e155558e8404502dfa1bf
ee61999c7679445c1f1f12d8051520455cff50ba
1896 F20101204_AABXQV duke_d_Page_35.txt
1b02486bae86c2a603b093603e309b3f
4a252bd341dd508e2377d2c07a19a4bc89280260
111064 F20101204_AABXLY duke_d_Page_58.jp2
14ef2aa8057ebb1f1209acec377cb445
8cdadb0849d40ec3e3d040928f30edab64563c8b
8431 F20101204_AABXEC duke_d_Page_38thm.jpg
2ee1c05a6a3e0ac228b222efcd61b946
7946d92c3d13cf98621fa4421dd7acfc640b6f27
921 F20101204_AABXQW duke_d_Page_36.txt
7b53b96189d1d1ab80c92b07b49be8f5
aa4814f5805b6f3c45e2277e191dd35cf94e018b
107544 F20101204_AABXJA duke_d_Page_14.jpg
3c3a7702adae75da2d28b2052256a855
f7b1c24aa9fc1815d3922c21e4df012a33a42ee2
108731 F20101204_AABXLZ duke_d_Page_59.jp2
a3117c53c7d1169a2278b90f729c0c06
d79c682b6c41125392709ace09e4b2ad4bf13a70
12237 F20101204_AABXED duke_d_Page_04.pro
e0efd2f174d1654135834a2013a78096
fa581bb79ad7b58a3a64fdcd29ad56d837ff1c82
2069 F20101204_AABXQX duke_d_Page_38.txt
29e923b333ed320efe472c97922dd1bb
c7c69eff89b9225d465d3cf5d4e9b8ef163077eb
93318 F20101204_AABXJB duke_d_Page_16.jpg
10374b2704252b1318c9e7cfc2fb5623
897180347d33089c4dcfd065f0aa1d250d27773f
63483 F20101204_AABXEE duke_d_Page_61.pro
6791abf01600be94772e388d5e4ed759
4f5db92b64b68af1bc5855a8801fe6c0895ca382
1053954 F20101204_AABXOA duke_d_Page_66.tif
caa36a4c3ff94eb444ba41ecc30e4656
65c66bc245618db1962494249743ba471155eeaf
2013 F20101204_AABXQY duke_d_Page_39.txt
f7efbce762c57287438db08d5ea85553
fdee549b7eddbca3b9d2913fbdc23ba0df507717
101440 F20101204_AABXJC duke_d_Page_18.jpg
4ce878e82fda04fc66b6a9e24099baa6
384f78bfbdcecc09fa141716edaa2d2dbe45a813
1984 F20101204_AABXEF duke_d_Page_13.txt
619414925ed0c2078d7bff5519af1519
bb5506601361595211a977b2ca9f1280475aca81
1971 F20101204_AABXQZ duke_d_Page_40.txt
3b3174ce5f1d415968186d34a9821a7d
b33c5b0ccf7e255cb62e866615e91accac3021da
104721 F20101204_AABXJD duke_d_Page_19.jpg
bea8e14cc861059661966c5f1f97c3d2
0c71960b0f770b63c8f7ec1c482a9ce71b21b310
14829 F20101204_AABXEG duke_d_Page_29.jpg
6c0ecb302f9c5efdd267d342ecd20d5d
570d445844f6097ee1472c1ccb412732b8bcf068
7794 F20101204_AABXOB duke_d_Page_01.pro
4a585b0a6285d4e71c66281ec313ae9b
982091047c05cb69643f564373a80a585b280de8
108795 F20101204_AABXJE duke_d_Page_20.jpg
7a0e8e83f5a5855c069fe44073f3c491
f015f58e7aa869f20943918a31bfcadb53e07e7b
F20101204_AABXEH duke_d_Page_14.tif
744874e12cbe8fd812e50822fc3a0ad9
dae5bd0853f01e1a82e08d82292e0853b873996e
592 F20101204_AABXTA duke_d_Page_02thm.jpg
1c5370378805354d68e582c87c106150
f61dd6e82b9fe7551d7221445f7731a85888666c
1117 F20101204_AABXOC duke_d_Page_02.pro
5588bb08e80b2c0ee46488cfe7fb4ece
e27b24790dab1b3f3ceb003c8ac613a0c7f47da4
106998 F20101204_AABXJF duke_d_Page_21.jpg
2e5638aa3caa5847e0714bb0cea0c390
796838429ea7cd1407988045f5490148b62ef997
F20101204_AABXEI duke_d_Page_40.tif
bb026f62fe5484efe4b11cf7aeb3f602
62cb6005b90c49d4af0b486e48231e7d0601469d
9632 F20101204_AABXTB duke_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
65fbc6d146596f4e8c6043cd5de1f48a
2e233204047bfc51736ba5f79b2721fbd4d74039
29788 F20101204_AABXOD duke_d_Page_06.pro
12a6409a7eb0cfa35e1fcc144249a9bd
de02471883463d8971ed9fffe6e2bbdcc355e4a8
103525 F20101204_AABXJG duke_d_Page_22.jpg
fcc0535cd7cfb8ab6612612ee223d638
5ddf90cb8b662a3d787c8a9735d6fc865f05f9a6
2354 F20101204_AABXEJ duke_d_Page_64.txt
d21518ccd691788e46437c8d8b129d73
cba74955fc63bc106e53f2b301127e37f07f2f8a
2633 F20101204_AABXTC duke_d_Page_04thm.jpg
38f019e1230cb57a311a9c07c6f0686f
ea16833841315807c5cfa5e44ed6d4a3dff701b0
37584 F20101204_AABXOE duke_d_Page_07.pro
c6ae27cd5758c927d7aa0530d7c926fd
32f6a43228867432c45e436e181b78578c56a749
98697 F20101204_AABXJH duke_d_Page_23.jpg
816f856fe8229fd3e6da5db38e50828e
d90231f5facf7484ee6f8833c1a4bbc2bc524993
229 F20101204_AABXEK duke_d_Page_29.txt
1fa919e410d8682437b631610aeef996
8eaf22f5930f1d554ee0226902699dc998868d8b
5844 F20101204_AABXTD duke_d_Page_05thm.jpg
dcdfc2b158f84b8a6864529cf3015c0c
37ca0805d053386ed9913a5c021d514e8a758efb
22150 F20101204_AABXOF duke_d_Page_08.pro
6507be87f399e99bd8161a8926ebb51c
a4e5fecc76025cb3ad6d76fc040e589bcae0698a
103112 F20101204_AABXJI duke_d_Page_25.jpg
5d4e25f61536620f1cd1f2e8388f3052
c114bf3f6b28652b3a3f94687e61099ddfd3303f
33119 F20101204_AABXEL duke_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
4fd9e8c1d91e3b6be8ac3c2a252cd169
1572f70f459a879e01e5428af4fe6196c9b8d6af
22984 F20101204_AABXTE duke_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
5fb88087b42ccdf832acd215d1f231dc
ed7f014e2034618e934f5ea4b4b2d40524e6917d
38151 F20101204_AABXOG duke_d_Page_09.pro
790bf12445ea1c69f7862b1dad9878da
d1b8f06e08a75165c4c3822fa5ac0b5673c92be7
21057 F20101204_AABXJJ duke_d_Page_26.jpg
5be35654640008c824e5d70d90689899
068c97560eda7c851380e4d152b3fec8f7f1d4d1
25271604 F20101204_AABXEM duke_d_Page_43.tif
2d4e679d3bcff6f022e446092a1b2bef
1ba13473d72a40468a6b8dc745678b0f1023cfa7
5647 F20101204_AABXTF duke_d_Page_07thm.jpg
f0b4ad0a2acbe72bbc72da2794f70fc3
4f48e3ef1b36b2a985a447a168b0407cc205d31e
31049 F20101204_AABXOH duke_d_Page_10.pro
278a4dc3f20facfc11ab4e51fb2fdddf
519d677f64ec5252926206913ea7c4e2b0907aca
81535 F20101204_AABXJK duke_d_Page_27.jpg
74e6057368a73f5a06de7f131cf9e557
c5e1cd27c3f3e73b23f2e5840ca524572760470d
68818 F20101204_AABXEN duke_d_Page_62.pro
5e5062c2fa31e018f6c9c9bed9a4315c
d45dff2573e5ba57c5443c101d87367405616b51
43702 F20101204_AABXOI duke_d_Page_11.pro
5ea536adfeb3faea794c963732978b1e
a63ee4fc3474beaec5e166b1ce769d7c00760720
42831 F20101204_AABXJL duke_d_Page_28.jpg
4f13e891d469261e73c38e3b1dcdc96a
02042726f9236e5901f8d69e74d84a35347fd700
8457 F20101204_AABXEO duke_d_Page_21thm.jpg
9be5aa2b98c493a81a3a24740f02e923
899052128def9ef6ceac75fca4aff723a9b37ef0
5270 F20101204_AABXTG duke_d_Page_10thm.jpg
7045a18957346c2339374de23b1e00fd
f691d965887900c454d479bc52994f0689f275da
15458 F20101204_AABXJM duke_d_Page_31.jpg
ac0c0bcc453d3b51c02aeb2126a1ac63
d24c3d31f4dfe8aeba48435438b112bacb097b7a
F20101204_AABXEP duke_d_Page_26.tif
a72c2d5b31cdb426d9e3fdee44a81550
5ff08c1d59ff1d82988ec2b3a4c123f7cac5f203
50282 F20101204_AABXOJ duke_d_Page_13.pro
54a379101e0c596b7b9b404e8911a358
8d40561c30b8c7a12d0416de7627a0c5bb37e809
29339 F20101204_AABXTH duke_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
e40e63528872f2c6515c436996968654
b97f93fb3d866a8df8156cadd02521d31235217e
96419 F20101204_AABXJN duke_d_Page_34.jpg
a7d1089fccd964002919240af16558f3
dccbd6bf5c9fdc01afc573538f9dd36811f434a7
F20101204_AABXEQ duke_d_Page_45.tif
54810f208ab2bb29c47c1c1015a7202f
c5d17336488327529a8215a100fa9281fb43d8a6
51168 F20101204_AABXOK duke_d_Page_14.pro
98a760488ed67065de374b5745c64919
30dfa62f154f3a3614ead4c1b7909c0f739704e8
8611 F20101204_AABXTI duke_d_Page_12thm.jpg
451b5c306d7f6e61998bacdec8681365
840457285ceb65dfc3f826c703ed34bcca9e15b3
102407 F20101204_AABXJO duke_d_Page_35.jpg
96a906c97e4d0cf52cc2bd00f25739e5
f86f203b3578b54bd879d1cb9ec1c8185098c8cc
F20101204_AABXER duke_d_Page_01.tif
0d8d1bde153222aa1375e87e02177fad
1a5ac6ad3ab5ab49200593234bc38c36c2319652
50494 F20101204_AABXOL duke_d_Page_15.pro
e602e13d2706e4eb7a2c7737c02ac91a
7310ac093e3759757db821dd79b3f329afb6fb28
8158 F20101204_AABXTJ duke_d_Page_13thm.jpg
2d93e2ee59db496cc06a2b34a83518c8
be68bc30b36265ba140f86e8ec1232aa976c1cef
49544 F20101204_AABXJP duke_d_Page_36.jpg
8f1cd360c4795251118b8c76b4d03618
146b0468c904cb1c245a275a223b190fd5aeb5e0
31758 F20101204_AABXES duke_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
a3124ae017de1196793aedbd83683cb7
b0b9fcd66e9ce3a03863cde17721201d9aa5c833
44418 F20101204_AABXOM duke_d_Page_16.pro
5627018c3008f70cab66e94f39fd8612
867729bd53a2dd099d83e1bfa4ac5946d9b121e3
8455 F20101204_AABXTK duke_d_Page_14thm.jpg
042a0696a1bafeb6d6c08cfbefd63eff
ab7fab3a1b01b44a401067862a387533499d1e4c
90992 F20101204_AABXJQ duke_d_Page_37.jpg
cfb7fdd3b06a7ac52741b0e1d83fa88e
fba2b804a2a05d45a61869435d5a0ea1697ddc03
3977 F20101204_AABXET duke_d_Page_29.pro
bacf01e8a95814d2712c718ef276855f
0318b57e40dfca09d0fe363848235a99310f7f7e
50859 F20101204_AABXON duke_d_Page_19.pro
848a3e5b162fb0ffb1e77d2bd162619f
e8881d85dd4687b4489199b4d90aef485bca9a6e
33015 F20101204_AABXTL duke_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
05264f256510376984ad9f5785be12b1
50bd8b864281c795bdec333f265bd10b86d92583
103914 F20101204_AABXJR duke_d_Page_39.jpg
3faffc78ac4dc6e2dde665e992774ac4
97f52d153b7d80a6f9e205f659429b5f2557b8e6
3633 F20101204_AABXEU duke_d_Page_66thm.jpg
343981d64a1ea33cfb24d78f530569a5
537ec24278931bf087c03afc01bffb57fdbbc7d4
52210 F20101204_AABXOO duke_d_Page_21.pro
4c8a37c81f6f6ba74384ae742397c563
29d57aa8ff6800c1fcfd560e930ccffc9ad69a53
29837 F20101204_AABXTM duke_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
3512aed58898d31db5d04ee69c0d0fe5
9e6e5289a5399d7a38733635ca8ab7d8bc2b8dfd
101808 F20101204_AABXJS duke_d_Page_41.jpg
1ce84813196aa4a0cae7050cdebf06c3
98374656933bfd6237d8fa3750e28a90486a366f
12419 F20101204_AABXEV duke_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
8b439daa4117181ce2b6f2fe915b1b1e
a2d722a3e58df5930f79ba43d8b51edc49856041
50237 F20101204_AABXOP duke_d_Page_22.pro
f332b2c15050750295e0a190b664ee0d
4fd18429cf4dd620ad8955f06a3739cd942f677a
35634 F20101204_AABXTN duke_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
4ece8115002a992fb05b844dbcbd10f5
f47acee580c0fd78947cb1b43544e37e0416db4f
30984 F20101204_AABXJT duke_d_Page_42.jpg
9c47533c073e292213f62d868ed4ec4f
1bfe69ecc79722096bacb4358f0c2d1aa27ae724
37184 F20101204_AABXEW duke_d_Page_43.jpg
8aa4cb53de2dccd55c55d3fda49781fd
cae557762119b179a23101e459603522458f6a26
47864 F20101204_AABXOQ duke_d_Page_23.pro
0b8a37d5f670185c6823b7c4a8396dfd
d4c1cc2f30c4d5ebc4e651ec3b35193340f3a7a8
8388 F20101204_AABXTO duke_d_Page_20thm.jpg
52855a84efc12737a754b08d95ee3b93
30a888839219f2ea40a2648aeecd893ebd11b896
36335 F20101204_AABXJU duke_d_Page_44.jpg
660faa84d4a2894f9be1e4a215eb81d9
b4f58bf74f302eaad0e0e4b7cbd5e7858d0b8819
8719 F20101204_AABXOR duke_d_Page_26.pro
ac0602668f38afff71ad979aac0ebc59
1740c3aa97636645b90973f412ac56065ff34f1f
7933 F20101204_AABXTP duke_d_Page_23thm.jpg
ae914aaaee3c47046b05a01fd0fde358
275fadf175e0456b51c149a5ec13bd1e5e9dafab
36165 F20101204_AABXJV duke_d_Page_45.jpg
e8faa9399f20a1ce4d2a18a1efd63ddd
d074a4a396a44e6e6d9c590f0b9f4fb000fe7c01
110721 F20101204_AABXEX duke_d_Page_17.jp2
531eb402dbd0efe75853e3c4a53dfb08
ed92617517a2c0bdb0a66f0426b5d4fd4db09fab
37903 F20101204_AABXOS duke_d_Page_27.pro
1b4c693d3f6c7657515d7c4f5fd5cc8e
64eb18267a91032bd3d0eec0bc0efc7bc770ae96
7946 F20101204_AABXTQ duke_d_Page_24thm.jpg
608fce3e9519a59f333d3b6eb2c7863a
564c27197916e1a2af21f418b001a33d21f5830a
17027 F20101204_AABXJW duke_d_Page_46.jpg
a1fe7493ed5fd2c21b3cde9e5be55761
0b2494e05b275395e6bafa52f7b201cdafe0db77
3223 F20101204_AABXEY duke_d_Page_06thm.jpg
2e1717f67548697f856dc9324328f012
2cdae71c5409142d7f4d4b8a4c4ca71e5155a6e7
18966 F20101204_AABXOT duke_d_Page_28.pro
6db7aee2aa93c566c866749bb8dac2ed
7671a2dce5306de909f71d7cca43b982269e0909
6998 F20101204_AABXTR duke_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
d57a5444c248236411fc99380bd92ef5
59a337062a764f1ff3bb60898d4c6503a6c13fc7
21362 F20101204_AABXJX duke_d_Page_47.jpg
b0c46e32cf6ae37a68229d3fb6307b8f
23ff22d81b7da8f9b5b4bde5df4b3f7b66612334
105893 F20101204_AABXEZ duke_d_Page_23.jp2
2983f66cb0c6ad24ccb89d1cb9f1c1ce
6728f2605f75f487be322e4fce184835c9788df7
4519 F20101204_AABXOU duke_d_Page_30.pro
bec4ed021c1b580a12528d5bc7e4b6c0
7be9223811eb091c14640111e882d7571add42ac
26522 F20101204_AABXTS duke_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
77c79284d1671a6063945b5d982f66b4
98877fdf4ecb026dd45d053d1c2f3164d0beb9ea
32207 F20101204_AABXJY duke_d_Page_48.jpg
4552be9ea4c04c1357b90cd52aaaa8a0
cede6580eff6a601958c20c6d18962f763dd11ea
4296 F20101204_AABXOV duke_d_Page_31.pro
5aca2e6eee2592557992fcd6886453b1
5ab74c0630e9dbdc12124148106b640be283be6e
14554 F20101204_AABXTT duke_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
cf612345dabb62d71d853f882695041d
2a321f9666be480003d0656d19643f0c344caa7a
30947 F20101204_AABXJZ duke_d_Page_50.jpg
8b2ea2188eb55bb28b47f08e09ba878f
930dd8b94d800aeddb36cf113b29d3d03fc02312
41607 F20101204_AABXOW duke_d_Page_32.pro
f94d0b45e43c7bbe0707453e931e44e4
1be31f660d00758dc3c35bc0dcf5adcf7f324047
45819 F20101204_AABXHA duke_d_Page_28.jp2
b78e65159d79404c7987ebfa265f23ed
e017d1a41c160ecc9e03ea0e2a793d3441c4d28f
3916 F20101204_AABXTU duke_d_Page_28thm.jpg
8ac6a611ee83a1a4a3b108bd10332da8
15f4d60acf222a697c18c776100d26433d48aa78
46112 F20101204_AABXOX duke_d_Page_33.pro
92dc26a7235763a0d8173cefbd588a9d
6ee942b85e675d71403ca1d5de5f79e22d0954e1
28262 F20101204_AABXHB duke_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
2a439172c50c7c8030906d9f276a9da7
baf2ff8a154175bfd6c017f0eb3bf2f2838748e1
5753 F20101204_AABXTV duke_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
6ee04bdde905ad590696abd78b37eac8
d7085ab8b7864642c47e12c57a5ba71960c5a304
46805 F20101204_AABXOY duke_d_Page_34.pro
0c1fe8df9d5b2fd97cdc667f08423759
4510061a4e60eac0f49d15416da0e567e352d50f
F20101204_AABXHC duke_d_Page_10.tif
faf5f48caab905abac7d1707d6def36e
c18b9aa3f13ab37386d542dd8391e95289c75eab
5637 F20101204_AABXTW duke_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
29fb6919e5d27d71f9786023d761a136
04fccec659a65680e800940bcd4475e4c4537a7b
1051953 F20101204_AABXMA duke_d_Page_60.jp2
255e304cec0ca03bb4eeacc23825d92d
ec060d96588182489644ffbead480ae65721deba
47970 F20101204_AABXOZ duke_d_Page_35.pro
1078068be816644d95e0dd1045dfda86
3492453698dc12dd215d80d100851fe97e1d0116
6797 F20101204_AABXHD duke_d_Page_27thm.jpg
b3bd03c4495b4d4b9f34b703534b599b
2ab5d7965988bd7690b329ad59364e2c5241a0e7
1755 F20101204_AABXTX duke_d_Page_31thm.jpg
b50d7e459effde8ce0eafb730b434da5
d870bc00f0191d1fda81aad7acb538cb380f8b99
1051984 F20101204_AABXMB duke_d_Page_61.jp2
2d7fa9102f0f8c8a709704b26c46d77c
f2cec262b5d6783c0964a606db2b6426a8ba102c
32673 F20101204_AABXHE duke_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
1edeeb0dbe5e6d2a2d4e6bc1d845bdda
f0ffbcba17bfc335408b793adc3739cb0feaca42
6900 F20101204_AABXTY duke_d_Page_32thm.jpg
56aded68b680baaa718adfff88918211
ea4bb4446a3cf58713c702209d28972b6fc9603d
1959 F20101204_AABXRA duke_d_Page_41.txt
b280014ada23b59d669dbcabfba5dfd0
b82630606952c94db6af8e80666ec7852cd84f66
123163 F20101204_AABXMC duke_d_Page_64.jp2
547377fd34ad091cea1bac067d63b5aa
bd6b4d6d786c967c8417859a161e05802324d7f8
33764 F20101204_AABXHF duke_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
13055b8834e7975f2c90baa2752c024c
0fd2677ebe53c57aae05a0c6b3d2a67d99a10281
8154 F20101204_AABXTZ duke_d_Page_34thm.jpg
af24029bef7d9a01b28563292b86c399
7556158a74b48d719b0d3e0f7127b3b4e872df84
551 F20101204_AABXRB duke_d_Page_42.txt
eb95d7f47bf17719f1ce73d25e799624
7cfb83baf7a3ebef9466b55a67db257688100910
28654 F20101204_AABXMD duke_d_Page_65.jp2
e491398126c6333c90a6b4272cbde519
f633796f34844f96a3764db74eda1e9a23527b72
2754 F20101204_AABXHG duke_d_Page_62.txt
e640dc1bc72711e9b0d93088e7d1d227
38067a10f3082becec1f63401fcb6390fe222fae
442 F20101204_AABXRC duke_d_Page_43.txt
e4aff0cd3efd5213fb6665e375061534
fed82c619101c24ea2a03b0306d4b57c91d8f9be
44582 F20101204_AABXME duke_d_Page_66.jp2
1ac7fbb60538d9f1cbbdd9137f63b272
070743e9a8bdf09538ec441f36a60b37c94f1dc2
34587 F20101204_AABXHH duke_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
5b8c3f7ca8db4a76c71e418fd73ffb24
b8f40b32a672b0c1df7dd813c7eb25be07d0521d
416 F20101204_AABXRD duke_d_Page_45.txt
1b3780546ded871e0b732dbaebc1cb27
a8aaf742e634ee81f07ab7ca2a1babe547738fac
F20101204_AABXMF duke_d_Page_02.tif
25d8220abde3a2f6d66ec643459e7313
158927561b098eaedbd8bad276510d7fbd11af8f
F20101204_AABXHI duke_d_Page_28.tif
cfe9b398cc86a08131a0a910568224be
df7f8b263aa57227e3d585028f0e041d211dfe85
F20101204_AABXMG duke_d_Page_03.tif
1e0e91d2ca377789c5c01ee7174fe796
e13924f21e4e4c6feed1ae3095ec279ccbdce999
113092 F20101204_AABXHJ duke_d_Page_14.jp2
6cb71c5f4ebd027f97625745cda3c40d
fb2c033d6d744dc334ac8d21819cc69f8ed69003
213 F20101204_AABXRE duke_d_Page_46.txt
17f40815793b49b8cefeaa398fa5d3c2
af130cc93f0c485ea6aac20e39f7782796ab4257
F20101204_AABXMH duke_d_Page_05.tif
f574031d1bc0b8ed6af2cf395a2ad78f
c2c38f95b10be20c14deea3609bedaa75a44358e
315822 F20101204_AABXHK duke_d_Page_44.jp2
c0a86a1993b6ae6081ef3383b66642b2
8fc59de00d97aa41f0b7a63cbf3130691c8fe1e9
F20101204_AABXMI duke_d_Page_06.tif
5bdb26f8e7e563e703de0cd6ab273052
05dea508331d6543e38f76f230ad5f261b2c6b12
58053 F20101204_AABXHL duke_d_Page_05.pro
bef61d6f6e8f48494d9604658dc0b968
f21c39d1f4c4653b8fbd490adb6c228196391e6d
554 F20101204_AABXRF duke_d_Page_50.txt
cc5d24044f1cf1810d79e8bda5e81de1
9ed5d8e3f9dd6280d5ba3922216ae8d34f957de1
F20101204_AABXMJ duke_d_Page_07.tif
515ba17ad2f58eb2bab17deaba3f538f
5d279cf1d6064475e0c0315ec69eb7ce5d5a4f25
58732 F20101204_AABXHM duke_d_Page_64.pro
e437a0e67fcca9424e2a980236ab3ebd
828c47a9c48cb02dbfed58e2b9f44a0cedef4775
1810 F20101204_AABXRG duke_d_Page_54.txt
aecd78918f939d43ba15257549721491
eb7c38452dd08e0fb727c1e728f26767ef550c2d
F20101204_AABXMK duke_d_Page_08.tif
487b3fa1f45e6db558a0b249f64fd1de
f9528dbcad664143c2b183384781dfa4de3194f9
865 F20101204_AABXHN duke_d_Page_49.txt
54cc7d94d3af4daeb45db4f1ba6cabba
41d8a2240affdf5281c95507fca4805a95b4818f
2001 F20101204_AABXRH duke_d_Page_55.txt
a390eae4fd8a48045ba0c3280a53bc8c
0838ad01045511fa2f016d415a99896a4ebba54c
F20101204_AABXML duke_d_Page_09.tif
ec520938c5dcc733be6973f85ba84dfb
07770c70adb9dbacc443c646ff7efd7f2a91c291
103635 F20101204_AABXHO duke_d_Page_34.jp2
7da768ad6b3f94e9bd2ded6f475c510a
d1b77f4f2aa15d67b639420e2cffef2944239411
1950 F20101204_AABXRI duke_d_Page_57.txt
616e6bbd41639a7ab7fd3b06bbdaab0e
4da7eca3260617ee365be739ccfd22343269584e
F20101204_AABXMM duke_d_Page_11.tif
0f89d1a1e6bf5c12550abdd487376124
b0c4c63050d82d29f24aa1c688e90eec924e8a4b
1590 F20101204_AABXHP duke_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
d55369fa4a2debff9d6e0a2b205f20b0
b0dfe00009dfea36c8b049e132d9b982109f124a
2046 F20101204_AABXRJ duke_d_Page_58.txt
f34e6240e065dca6fb2968845f3fb395
73a3939a4307d0e4f9c65ea923877266700e76a4
F20101204_AABXMN duke_d_Page_13.tif
17eda96575601ac6b3a6ac94d8638d1b
45da21d8d118d53be1f55c8ad6bdce68054f6e60
F20101204_AABXHQ duke_d_Page_04.tif
432954b9afb632aa9de0e0fb59772bc6
c29d95d99a2bb3359ff6b0963b0a88c0f3b8636b
1980 F20101204_AABXRK duke_d_Page_59.txt
3ec047b8a67a54869863cf3654d50204
9d1a4c0ffcce95967dc3e26528f55374cd542fa3
F20101204_AABXMO duke_d_Page_15.tif
08438c70b526c243535253e06784dd92
a2ea58714b6cc03cc13fa0b602aff69f7ee3b269
97517 F20101204_AABXHR duke_d_Page_24.jpg
e0bc356a6b761371ee1913df9015e727
fa5bc6be0fbec9545aa65e44924a680e33761183
2379 F20101204_AABXRL duke_d_Page_60.txt
10f838e44cb8e6cfba1d9a32cf1d6616
a1ce92226e41daacaea69a51d61c01955e20a89e
F20101204_AABXMP duke_d_Page_16.tif
c0dcf9a88ce1c489dbd352b2a42f8ac9
d6958175ca3d6f465d362695d212e694f8dfd0b6
540 F20101204_AABXHS duke_d_Page_04.txt
86ceb7e5d31eb6e39db055019651ff29
bc5bc6c5a8943a65aa5438651c5c9c9f8a9f52b7
2550 F20101204_AABXRM duke_d_Page_61.txt
1a4800b4e4e4e47b9ef99b4b498a12ce
c9156133392f68b2c04e2523d1e84cdbc7231e1c
F20101204_AABXMQ duke_d_Page_17.tif
8cc098859e1c312e5988c30860407c05
f57e2e727660920176e6fed73530c054c4e977bd
8399 F20101204_AABXHT duke_d_Page_19thm.jpg
6503f422b59aacd21f545ad8900150cd
0c2d2d09a7d1588925f0096d17ebca8a46def132
2587 F20101204_AABXRN duke_d_Page_63.txt
5e60ca71bd353d423cc07d43cb5826ef
4a48f8ca54879aa1857774e59ec99f813791b4eb
F20101204_AABXMR duke_d_Page_18.tif
c7344d6b56883d78e058973bfeeae920
9d1b37ea18cde5fdbea66cfe4a40a7dc082ad48c
22589 F20101204_AABXHU duke_d_Page_26.jp2
6792e1cbba04904b750f0408204d4d74
d265725ee29cd5498a77547bb14b5c2885fe96ef
500 F20101204_AABXRO duke_d_Page_65.txt
b433b3082c671aad5b0db64cea157fb8
9223d2890946a6acea64d1c7d30d6b188150864e
F20101204_AABXMS duke_d_Page_19.tif
3372a3adc8618146021350d0b901e6aa
e46485765755423b81dcb00a2689e674d279310d
51613 F20101204_AABXHV duke_d_Page_56.pro
474f66f997db965608089b37286d81bf
ef278fb6458b7325288b57fa075f77db77a2c960
792 F20101204_AABXRP duke_d_Page_66.txt
dba09008bfe653c6c7ca4db00567d2b6
35e19fe63b7d9c61213b355bb01b5bbe83fd8da7
F20101204_AABXMT duke_d_Page_20.tif
94ee3e772a645d0d2508350e4b2eaaa8
1f16dce73e7b8d78148e9415e3d8b5c0e9c8e2e7
51552 F20101204_AABXHW duke_d_Page_58.pro
a87487689336a8a634a2ae27b39b123b
dc7c5a76281a3a702554b03d54742c03b09da924
2167 F20101204_AABXRQ duke_d_Page_01thm.jpg
751dfff8507af6216f432f395e93e54e
aafff20deca9e24dfb8bc83ccc9459a34f2c1412
F20101204_AABXMU duke_d_Page_21.tif
65cb12c5b9aab05b6375ab13c05d34b4
69dbd61fc5817e3a0dc3d27c0a34900cca0b0fe9
F20101204_AABXHX duke_d_Page_44.tif
f345aca745ab0f7358bd133e260aeb49
aa9e6e7ba6bec1191eedef217d8adf02fb2d93f0
189885 F20101204_AABXRR duke_d.pdf
b5f2a1dfd4d474c784e0d64d6954c17d
289aa61b70616ea342de1fbd2d633653b2f60997
F20101204_AABXMV duke_d_Page_23.tif
55a11f35ce9cb76b39edbd6193100a7d
0f270aa945f72de4dbdb08ff0e00f79156f0b7e5
F20101204_AABXHY duke_d_Page_51.tif
76a8e46c995d2a089d7f1de53ef84465
e6a5b6f54e492b74527e4b9a175fc3946f47bc7f
37079 F20101204_AABXRS duke_d_Page_63.QC.jpg
733b519e1a84340131a9009f4b84bee5
9c996e6b33fa8fdad48d7090c9a8ac9195faa096
F20101204_AABXMW duke_d_Page_24.tif
cc2177727c4c4ccd659063c7f95c1cc3
5858f25d0766dbe57b0227c8e463a0e66a2566d6
449 F20101204_AABXFA duke_d_Page_44.txt
2ccfb4886e4d5b022ddf46210f5f14fd
b749a0492873d370289880750885b61aebaa2d8f
21066 F20101204_AABXHZ duke_d_Page_47.jp2
3628caa7226b967416327937742af95e
a04f7fdec67bf78da9ec96078247f04a21168564
3781 F20101204_AABXRT duke_d_Page_08thm.jpg
95f5d4a289b798b470645b6703e08a96
5fe4bb6dc814f949c9105f8e6135e18b4d5f4e59
F20101204_AABXMX duke_d_Page_25.tif
e9415eb3cc19e5ade051fa8635416b90
39190f1718d734139b7c79f197fe74aea66923f4
F20101204_AABXFB duke_d_Page_32.tif
f0763f1aa94c0d614dd9cecdd2bde35a
be61b51df3702cd184b7c4954326aed966eb0e46
33025 F20101204_AABXRU duke_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
240e7d49c7b613bfae1591a2a274ea50
d01fe420dbc437eaee859d46355acc86a8a22102
F20101204_AABXMY duke_d_Page_27.tif
13266a7cfbf057b5c1e50db4150b38ae
b0853f17be438823543b56f4268147153a71426d
533 F20101204_AABXFC duke_d_Page_52.txt
c6b7c3787c312db7ae00ff9c38a00855
037570c13659dc9a8698ffb9207d993ac7253006
8649 F20101204_AABXRV duke_d_Page_39thm.jpg
2b57f8f6968478fa6ce989c0239db587
eff2a9d83ca6cd6f201997fc97240b16f734be41
F20101204_AABXMZ duke_d_Page_29.tif
48e3ec7f5aa22cda03ed2bd51b856e7d
7ca9e33166bc0ad09e15908d70e812493e737913
50153 F20101204_AABXFD duke_d_Page_25.pro
4e459ced79467ab14ef72462b1fbf112
401aa8f2656868bca212dee3ecaecc82a7ab7f66
6932 F20101204_AABXRW duke_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
7ed08a098cbaa24e8c3c2e471b4edb83
28b5042ca3431eeaeceb44fd1f6dea3b9518b542
32715 F20101204_AABXKA duke_d_Page_51.jpg
4dd4fd842c121f967f93ba8396340fc1
fa08978b863b6aa2b60637b50a44ebabaf0804f7
7721 F20101204_AABXFE duke_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
b20ee781ea85d20723e3630ea06f2a22
dcbc07277820782abd8a96d789aefbc3118e2a7a
32988 F20101204_AABXRX duke_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
261aef2423ac4e7b92160c1ce10b95fc
f312fc3d0f47d30bba54d039c184c444a89f2b08
32435 F20101204_AABXKB duke_d_Page_52.jpg
722a0e2b33b3c6085f1fbe82176cd1e5
c9cf785308781945d2806e3da41194af6acdd4fa
5623 F20101204_AABXFF duke_d_Page_02.jp2
a2765646178fcddfeb8a97fd4fc87af6
4404c870b23d04033cd3c5cf92167a8240f75049
22855 F20101204_AABXPA duke_d_Page_36.pro
141d50cf9ca48bfb28c247d653d2c636
67de50f804103f36d04d4f6f14ffe3c4d51a661c
33849 F20101204_AABXRY duke_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
72365b395adeefdc425372f8a7954b9f
85c8ecd8a1c345ebf7ade552725bd0948f413ab7
32550 F20101204_AABXKC duke_d_Page_53.jpg
7acdb7c3b7a419820ae9ff35614016dd
0c5cdb2db35364cb4342d5e9fff74362de094920
15715 F20101204_AABXFG duke_d_Page_30.jpg
398866d645da08db7358f2ac997715c4
fccbc8dbae3b25937d740163fb35741ccfe1adcd
44417 F20101204_AABXPB duke_d_Page_37.pro
fdee45affa812db1e42b03d0fcb988fe
e279e28b1230af754f5daf8532a3dd68a98be8fc
33984 F20101204_AABXRZ duke_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
c14f8cd62629dd96f3f6746b8a0a25a6
d90c8f8c3c2d8b6a7e3f0449d3b06385821dd2ff
88876 F20101204_AABXKD duke_d_Page_54.jpg
26f52df26b7849b23e799a938e7b6331
bef138361faad5d023e3b5d3137f1ee30ea36058
21280 F20101204_AABXFH duke_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
1b22864d8227f791d2a3b2915da01647
71f8fa20ba8bd27f946b93a2927bb904c252ec9d
103459 F20101204_AABXKE duke_d_Page_55.jpg
7482f7299a61b8d343ac9800c202002a
0e3310d392494ab894e28a5bd37961ee7c8a8c1a
32985 F20101204_AABXUA duke_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
dcdee526b7ff817abf88a8288c1e87d0
4c3dab1752ca4b3fe5f7c99b73568601258f5989
48918 F20101204_AABXFI duke_d_Page_57.pro
ca995c4a29202fceb06f733520396fbf
ca959706ee7a86d0841469008d067c10d9d686a3
52686 F20101204_AABXPC duke_d_Page_38.pro
445c2a2778b191949c2ccde9b324fbca
6f7c6d8c6f374c551272a6fb1fdf86040aeecb01
104836 F20101204_AABXKF duke_d_Page_56.jpg
b8296da50eb449fbad91c9355adce22f
d770dec1984dc61e55fcde8d49ef9fd45648196f
17114 F20101204_AABXUB duke_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
f2e6b4e453b2426c50f0783358573da6
97309cc19e2d4c5e12d6fa9e5d9d1bcd053b5202
52669 F20101204_AABXFJ duke_d_Page_06.jpg
be3262aea0cc5293f537d5fd216b9682
9abd73c63426e90324d19c3036031ffa62d5aadd
51048 F20101204_AABXPD duke_d_Page_39.pro
2b70d512c8c3cfb396870125cc23251e
d318eecb1889e489efee0c179cc165f4b065d37d
100636 F20101204_AABXKG duke_d_Page_57.jpg
3626ee05ebdf871896e900f3981b1f68
3794ccbc4e9698dba1b8aca8392228be99e0a311
7470 F20101204_AABXUC duke_d_Page_37thm.jpg
b5d23fb252aa67fe05cd03435648163f
dade4c2ffb7a1200d8f74fa53fba0c4e6e10ee26
1982 F20101204_AABXFK duke_d_Page_15.txt
9a55d1d73bedd7e14ce3ccf3f3f55aea
b4859784a097266ceaf61332d9d1b99f849c5621
50068 F20101204_AABXPE duke_d_Page_40.pro
59e58f4bed3b769ff8686fcec391c852
8202b114bdf6952324cab1fb26389ca6f80db20d
104347 F20101204_AABXKH duke_d_Page_58.jpg
718a1175f5c499420b0e362107a77449
7356cf7eda72cbb3302a865e969638fcca146d80
8329 F20101204_AABXUD duke_d_Page_40thm.jpg
864c15f5621a61613b854c5121f0b629
627b14ae26e5616561eefe32404138bb9313da42
F20101204_AABXFL duke_d_Page_25thm.jpg
96941d5b1680d08ff1f1fa450db5b392
ef9840ac33c9adce865c92e25ab8081a1cc8b738
49890 F20101204_AABXPF duke_d_Page_41.pro
ff5edecc6944110a7b5090fb134d42ad
618ac2a3e84a3972076e1d952892c71e27a013a6
116450 F20101204_AABXKI duke_d_Page_60.jpg
9404dc654aa8ad4fad6ce6581f5c7ec3
3389830d37e5d714007c2bd91d44867256298cf2
32534 F20101204_AABXUE duke_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
9a7b54175a7fe74fd8a02a67c093e6f9
66869299a22d954ca13823b41008241bb5898986
94508 F20101204_AABXFM duke_d_Page_33.jpg
3ffa1e9fea8d36d23b44b57a5fc91475
82e4e93957ce04cccb04fad9abf5c06b7cf33fbb
13783 F20101204_AABXPG duke_d_Page_42.pro
cd3e6006bd23783eeb56d558cf9b0b4c
541635e79e330618d1bb7b008a353ec2e30c8276
126146 F20101204_AABXKJ duke_d_Page_63.jpg
68db5ad485cd37236a662087bc39fe0e
5204cbcd7c320ccc92b35eb69a811b466062a140
10683 F20101204_AABXUF duke_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
0f8f8790031bcf317b6313eb3a6bc933
c224af309e01464e4fbaf9ee215ba8738e350ef2
671 F20101204_AABXFN duke_d_Page_03thm.jpg
02fe8050f0027dbda784641cfef0d61f
e4de508350ae570a29f00f291c4c41580b302f84
9598 F20101204_AABXPH duke_d_Page_44.pro
32e322c5a83548932b786d23beb7f972
d140fcea0a1538df1b03eb8be305a85840d3d882
119858 F20101204_AABXKK duke_d_Page_64.jpg
17dd34edd30e9f0dc7847af2f4233282
6ca09c198e96c3606fa0d9bedb95c2ddf06dbdc9
11701 F20101204_AABXUG duke_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
c07e4ec87ad82f30f885d75d2f4749a1
0b5e1a4d290266f54504401cad55c1ee74683aa4
1789 F20101204_AABXFO duke_d_Page_03.pro
3eff93127f9eef3e031cc6f4be7e1793
9e7ca3ea01b42f82f5bf00db0537b51514bcc1ce
8697 F20101204_AABXPI duke_d_Page_45.pro
4349cc1038e5f62feba0f7d657ad4fd2
94460c7fa21fd28daa833a4626b5267b64040a7f
42224 F20101204_AABXKL duke_d_Page_66.jpg
5d9335b2978604ae205e2ddf36487c48
3b577789945b6e9d09cb481124eaa344d1a7490e
40572 F20101204_AABXFP duke_d_Page_49.jpg
e7bd00aad2927eb563b0dc0a0b4224c5
7b6911fb7b314a043455656eb11f654d41bd3ccf
4676 F20101204_AABXPJ duke_d_Page_46.pro
e43264c37f063cecea60064d10a8fe88
d7f1701a5974b31e86dca99197fb5ddd071d315c
22790 F20101204_AABXKM duke_d_Page_01.jp2
60e0c2a5db7efd108d526702057865f2
dc17008e02c23227ae3a327272c089480c459928
4103 F20101204_AABXUH duke_d_Page_45thm.jpg
8d9fd6b2b252b0a1a5569f19c4bb38bd
ae95b6f45721659d871e325bb6bc251aad3593c3
972 F20101204_AABXFQ duke_d_Page_08.txt
f294ce675038b7a2f932342c5d1995fb
62349cbde72e503f4f9fde55ede3f1face5d26b5
7755 F20101204_AABXPK duke_d_Page_47.pro
495acbdedb01788a6caab3da8abae557
3188841dc364c8c49c2f3eef2a94849407fdbd87
7090 F20101204_AABXKN duke_d_Page_03.jp2
4e4509d6bbf3c18f5cca70ae68110660
5aca3cffd188821f6094a804929cbebb2ce544b6
6034 F20101204_AABXUI duke_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
7374f1a9d7be463ebbbff5c17de0d64a
27e6328aaada967f531cf97cbf67283c78e78784
8138 F20101204_AABXFR duke_d_Page_41thm.jpg
696325e0caa2aa1d10206331d233b109
b0f6e4030ace44a0cdf34261a11a6e51e8829720
17307 F20101204_AABXPL duke_d_Page_49.pro
94b4541749e35d0ee0f2801960ecf87e
a38bcf62fbd1e665c4d52bd503a5e0be3b52c01b
29813 F20101204_AABXKO duke_d_Page_04.jp2
4e2ab7b52b3a1e827ec727d9fd46179b
e694745142afca96c8a39d7ddd2ab2ebc1299850
1833 F20101204_AABXUJ duke_d_Page_46thm.jpg
f29dc3dd2a6a33805fea5aa09a3b4f59
bc5f4c251ab372a0d4cda5aad31929f50e215251
104148 F20101204_AABXFS duke_d_Page_17.jpg
b62309db532f49f9f8001c5faf133b33
81c669a1953f248c73ea05c46ae78376477860a5
12256 F20101204_AABXPM duke_d_Page_50.pro
c8781f84883591f04694adfc5da7eb53
fa4733b7e3de95cbf66e5d260520b334f5f8b49d
1051955 F20101204_AABXKP duke_d_Page_05.jp2
915777fca0fb69591abb350cff851f96
5b7811d022345b408215fbc2c69c5910e02f21ca
2070 F20101204_AABXUK duke_d_Page_47thm.jpg
7d24ba73928848c9aa015430e0ce6780
27b3d3532a87d522c490b977c38fffda56cc7453
15215 F20101204_AABXFT duke_d_Page_30.jp2
50dd4af2ff78906a0b27cc2ccab1d002
d329edbf91a89bde57e9b556005e8e27a28d2d14
12396 F20101204_AABXPN duke_d_Page_51.pro
9584a6a4e67eb0cc36a254240bf2fdae
b4341e89a737e905e6dd16347abfda16af4954a3
967828 F20101204_AABXKQ duke_d_Page_06.jp2
b98020e2e6c062bf83af6d98977185c0
f15739a23615e8c484253f2feb19d3f959eee729
2701 F20101204_AABXUL duke_d_Page_48thm.jpg
9b9d9041e40fee771a5621fdceacd1e8
f051e279fafe631ab48c6217c768c0eb9d0ea5cb
F20101204_AABXFU duke_d_Page_47.tif
44d7998b9085391d4688a5038fe878a3
0a4d98113b3623b72cc4fa3c2c3a5ca977821809
11835 F20101204_AABXPO duke_d_Page_52.pro
f8ef8beb7201666d51a62c42e68072b2
4ccb97241c2f4a35189106774a6892f9d325fff5
1051958 F20101204_AABXKR duke_d_Page_07.jp2
6314654c234109f6bd8265a702d7a23d
b9fb0f90f5c968d04630a9e16da026d3ec4e89b8
3706 F20101204_AABXUM duke_d_Page_49thm.jpg
66242759bdf25605581c6d8f90ecb8b1
b7525065926cc3c0b672d58f29512cbb5f0ff088
11957 F20101204_AABXPP duke_d_Page_53.pro
996752cc9875a3232ca7119001710d93
d23af6e2c67c15e8d6d4448909ca89d9bf8611ef
994974 F20101204_AABXKS duke_d_Page_08.jp2
94b9973bd5fe8330cdca61b7df57c5f7
bb437795cd413efcc99673a8a2dabb46a4dda94a
648 F20101204_AABXFV duke_d_Page_48.txt
7850f68dc856769b338c2531e191b524
e33731e7019374d4d49cac230b42d5b0f1aedf9c
10587 F20101204_AABXUN duke_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
9e32ed16c8955ac96070b5b8eb351550
d15d3e566afb83c59097202fac3af8b1aa62c9f8
43063 F20101204_AABXPQ duke_d_Page_54.pro
9d4b1a182f18115859d21984684640bc
4028a0c3e8140095b53addcd51d98336d4263b2c
710949 F20101204_AABXKT duke_d_Page_10.jp2
56d46690a2138ecda4ce9e0847216ccb
467e770a6ac8b15bc7fdc5a55f719bf90cb05f69
2033 F20101204_AABXFW duke_d_Page_56.txt
c577f31dedc4eabd17b683c9b8687271
a2fc3567bf0f55e8676ea1473e0b90415f32ce80
10731 F20101204_AABXUO duke_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
3523f3ceb65bc14b9ba17bc12fb09ace
cda6114c04cf2c60ef896dd89f00392be7714902
50736 F20101204_AABXPR duke_d_Page_55.pro
5030c45e7b647cc2ee48dc37968cd553
ebda81cc5967237e36ec1e8caf30f70097fb22c2
95856 F20101204_AABXKU duke_d_Page_11.jp2
56737fdb65d449a6848a93e49b9f185f
856e514836fb1f82e72c0c074669d0469a4d51a8
50807 F20101204_AABXFX duke_d_Page_17.pro
8f05a154be6df885e06e6831f3bfc35d
92aa0187ee133ed51a53eea6722c4b717a7ccabe
10602 F20101204_AABXUP duke_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
9d19da8cde9fce87b0991c8cac516660
f44867457f7554c5bf4d6f581af4700324845139
50156 F20101204_AABXPS duke_d_Page_59.pro
15ab8c95236b41382e4e94c8af572f13
5e5d8a37c2cd40c21d7e6731827c363074766bc1
114699 F20101204_AABXKV duke_d_Page_12.jp2
a4015aac1066eb3dfa3e59a4ef4fe476
c34a283bef11d17d6a36df85a9f81b1230723931
11197 F20101204_AABXUQ duke_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
ca2a3414c384f83719369875dfd4caeb
7ebd190fd571526b4e93ca2f014684aaa7e2e686
12107 F20101204_AABXPT duke_d_Page_65.pro
9b1cc167cf525305e80518d9fcd2b56a
4ec246bb344bfaccd22eda3519bc3505f83b12a2
110541 F20101204_AABXKW duke_d_Page_13.jp2
2f6eda9cfcfe652241056e02ab910534
4a2b41d76982109f2fb064a5c3ca8b158e7487d0
53278 F20101204_AABXFY duke_d_Page_20.pro
82f7739580d4a31e15b173c521c9b09c
a62d8fc16d252c0d93e0cd48d676eaf9c8e5bb3c
3038 F20101204_AABXUR duke_d_Page_53thm.jpg
446b4816da687b9d451fefe2951ae20a
a98f88e2ed9bf4a53aa1b7d3c4edc02844f559ae
465 F20101204_AABXPU duke_d_Page_01.txt
e69ba8a9c2fd16f543d2fffa2cb38f20
ff5ef98293bf87bb14cd603a9fdff01a230b1996
109655 F20101204_AABXKX duke_d_Page_15.jp2
45abc74dd8fab9715eba2cdfcfcfe3ab
d042fc7e8cf54b9e284cd01c9004a5d63fa2da2e
F20101204_AABXFZ duke_d_Page_61.tif
56778e984381df187540084ba14cd6ad
2e7d3594eb19b75908ec5476dbba9c8bae2be362
7216 F20101204_AABXUS duke_d_Page_54thm.jpg
e3a2ad02de636282bf0918251a48ca17
6ce18e2c9860b81ce355625c0740dfa566279130
97 F20101204_AABXPV duke_d_Page_02.txt
c0697381f310e01294d62ec807ed2dca
07cdad42876f0ea8947e55ffd045cbd031109649
107973 F20101204_AABXKY duke_d_Page_18.jp2
a0834ac8304494a46b33cd8e20e9e8a1
d3b46df16c05f814786ea2c94d9a73ecaff2282c
32726 F20101204_AABXUT duke_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
e2ac308284f5ccbe0b3924f4ee73e369
d6a0c3278f58858f1d160d1feec9246ea6482e70
127 F20101204_AABXPW duke_d_Page_03.txt
9a18c9c34b6405ba77914c8666991afb
990b5c4e35983e195a6a5234b5b455fd0b83d93f
F20101204_AABXIA duke_d_Page_12.tif
9a09c7bb7652d9aadb7c8e5eda52e3c7
1b9195ecc5289009c303c4e89e8c2fc9e70ea4e9
111041 F20101204_AABXKZ duke_d_Page_19.jp2
cddc478c3140f4092fca383f522e22e6
b60cd2c46bc98ffc049895a91d77957ce21a633c
8287 F20101204_AABXUU duke_d_Page_55thm.jpg
3a9899245cd6b0e053febfe06ba56ff8
9523a1547dc53b346d1fdd1f7ce7c31ac3361aa7
2599 F20101204_AABXPX duke_d_Page_05.txt
a180c676d85cf29f554c5e31f2dac643
adebb05faedc72d3568df79eb80cda01ccfa2101
8483 F20101204_AABXIB duke_d_Page_60thm.jpg
d377225931ecc71b535725b660f84cdb
d67df7db4f770ad59115b6d35a99a390e46642f6
18679 F20101204_AABXDE duke_d_Page_66.pro
fc8026a52e6313ec13133101ac30f0af
a69bbfc29cc15b9f3cf81855dcaf6182ff678426
8482 F20101204_AABXUV duke_d_Page_56thm.jpg
b802aeb69cae33454b1cba4d7596e54a
33928e830b75842d790a71df8f288c253a627b1f
1337 F20101204_AABXPY duke_d_Page_06.txt
4ae8b00e1abafa5a113e7c6886d0e425
e96d0cf8dcdee0e565a3b24f7d101ef1cd873c39
31585 F20101204_AABXIC duke_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
5a0cc2e1030495f5ed010b1b180a68c3
4e1176dd9b2e4b4484c48846f733e04598a28da0
108183 F20101204_AABXDF duke_d_Page_38.jpg
4351f559bf8c41fd4b317f4000839b7e
09eb2aaf85bae90e244987565c1615474882b2a9
8241 F20101204_AABXUW duke_d_Page_57thm.jpg
f476bc747bd60535e85a4a2e907542e5
dc05233bbd08be7a85eeebbe8b11cbece4016ab2
1625 F20101204_AABXPZ duke_d_Page_07.txt
0eda96e257e9966de14730d6497d1264
66b6ebe40f8abf548080f6c1aeb032d361aec73b
580 F20101204_AABXID duke_d_Page_53.txt
958a05609c20bb9102642cf7b0101f81
ea9292c407d77b421839e943bd310633de68a66d
132111 F20101204_AABXDG duke_d_Page_61.jpg
da5b38cabad74870c27935fc368a0853
1bb172182a6a8a2cc6a52e501ebac17e72a429ec
F20101204_AABXNA duke_d_Page_30.tif
19d17ee0b9bd26269ca2099a82e123a5
0b8df107369b2d63d9858752889318fee15a1adf
8417 F20101204_AABXUX duke_d_Page_58thm.jpg
ec14977939ba6ceb68276fd72431e477
8bdcfc213e0fca0e9a307bbef5937c594450b0a1
9269 F20101204_AABXIE duke_d_Page_43.pro
9e1a8474e0092955ea43814e35472963
b67cd4bef8c58055f4e5807ff59b4a22d21214ec
5430 F20101204_AABXDH duke_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
815617ed08a1ae11fc84c7445183b282
f2bf123e9b02a94ca6ad0a05622feaa503fca288
F20101204_AABXNB duke_d_Page_31.tif
2d14fa5eb3c510b72b67c410f303bf23
964b74e51ac6795f8409c66ad0ed270bdde48652
8270 F20101204_AABXUY duke_d_Page_59thm.jpg
8aa66183b74dd6e7f18ff5c0f6e386df
99240f2ee04ea4125cd8e07f9241a7fc8ae79b92
1998 F20101204_AABXIF duke_d_Page_26thm.jpg
4cfa9b84f4c975123e11383869b359d0
4c7a4ab3f4304236126b83df55bcd2cb772c45a4
13605 F20101204_AABXSA duke_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
2af4e64c38ccfdab97afa48c8a747128
ef5fcbf9c089d08c0a527561cc0dc635210ccf59
1555 F20101204_AABXDI duke_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
d7170901347c8d5f9dbabd6f5ffb7765
06b6cc6467ab531c7d9ce19c2893609a9c6520f8
F20101204_AABXNC duke_d_Page_33.tif
d65a177fa05339c2f3e2cdac3736b108
65b1d4ae645ce656bf12b52f1464bbe4c9376dcb
38442 F20101204_AABXUZ duke_d_Page_61.QC.jpg
997695eb6ebacceaca4acc97fce99e9c
a8cf8f6a1d3395d3b0466260b1575d0f663e5e91
13539 F20101204_AABXIG duke_d_Page_66.QC.jpg
d4f0dbe1973a0947eb3645411cfca6cb
132e5a68f6bfa222971967194613b3b383a1ffea
F20101204_AABXSB duke_d_Page_43thm.jpg
166d277b0285fe79445419cae3fcb4bc
b4f00507e92fa52cbba86f908f51d9e0cd27bc29
64129 F20101204_AABXDJ duke_d_Page_63.pro
9ae3f3bedb211f005bd9f068d8a76b94
101866ec656197d6ba3125a7011e6ca5dcab9828
F20101204_AABXND duke_d_Page_34.tif
7e94011f56d728f96df8cebebc38ebec
338486f4b9a95f884a67024f9df8f93e5d3c9fc3
87501 F20101204_AABXIH duke_d_Page_32.jpg
e2fa2a4da72e54b6c84b75ea3d354580
27f2c8d70e675d2671d2c03fdbe1036c93870098
3882 F20101204_AABXSC duke_d_Page_44thm.jpg
28c35354f45b8beeb4ac340ce1943382
d8c5c12d5527166010b39c52734c9ac3a947c604
7175 F20101204_AABXDK duke_d_Page_11thm.jpg
d030c58d8ce261ac14f5bee0d38d4938
4963eac5afd8174389b79a93ffe83e5762c28334
F20101204_AABXNE duke_d_Page_35.tif
21112ae9b6de90c73ce87ef92b8281a0
77b2e337a1c66b3954a0a54fab72220cbc569bd6
24701 F20101204_AABXII duke_d_Page_01.jpg
5b21b6687b760f84a0e55b69c3fd3818
63b415d7aedce322168a85aa6454695d2ec60be4
33211 F20101204_AABXSD duke_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
fe1071fff19946f9f766fc3eb3b52bfd
2111d286384c51d82a45939db8146551a20193ba
51822 F20101204_AABXDL duke_d_Page_12.pro
764ca0903fa2275d14a812a0ccf884ea
115540e6476779247419cb4b1920ce458a69c13c
F20101204_AABXNF duke_d_Page_36.tif
4ac5b7f6c64a346f1a9e3db34f2b551d
4e29caafd63341d8e7a4585a3afc6a21d924c96e
2112 F20101204_AABXIJ duke_d_Page_20.txt
a02a37b5db71749bb6a4e32e14766576
f24d50a83cb432f03c87ad787af5898402bbbe87
12735 F20101204_AABXSE duke_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
452df77914310fd84e6cc10fac0ab9a0
327affefc381df41aa98521dfc300a7145f28877
28905 F20101204_AABXDM duke_d_Page_65.jpg
69a80786907e16585cca94a0abd37f54
42fa0859dbf77a61716f9694e9e0251c1035a962
F20101204_AABXNG duke_d_Page_37.tif
b96c6a299042fc9e7db206c00cc3c5b4
81cc8fc79009b2bd5b5467bdd9e359ba01cebe13
32373 F20101204_AABXIK duke_d_Page_59.QC.jpg
c2ea68176c7c00f804a3081114408db1
79c233fb877a0d5cb26751cb33b9843dc021baaf
101650 F20101204_AABXDN duke_d_Page_59.jpg
9189de27ca5f6e3b84fb49a4cdb0506c
e0a18a056c5613b126738a3f25193617f275ce11
F20101204_AABXNH duke_d_Page_39.tif
2e4bde316988690f557db80d1f152646
ca0ca25b4381d63b63fe03dd0fc05d841fd0f677
113025 F20101204_AABXIL duke_d_Page_38.jp2
14211de09f6b03b5e1bd54440e9070b9
175492133f6930f67a76e662d21c075c39b6d012
8027 F20101204_AABXSF duke_d_Page_18thm.jpg
47f52fea14b2bffa8edf74b84c618fa4
03a4f0846e2e2983e3f0ce7e3b9fd95f47a24976
131520 F20101204_AABXDO duke_d_Page_62.jpg
2db779cdce4652110ee29c8a223a27e1
ff6df17174d4add572ff8bd9f2900b1099b36a73
F20101204_AABXNI duke_d_Page_41.tif
3bcbe855e0ea4b025703cfc934b3b683
56057723b7b72939316c9d0be7cbc6fe93d62623
14652 F20101204_AABXIM duke_d_Page_48.pro
4c151b8c9c13280acb3371e8f88d488c
fb8d4e6a6d4435514b47ba237207583fee4f2760
8208 F20101204_AABXSG duke_d_Page_17thm.jpg
99fc6ddfa6d580f8782518dd2e0811b2
380e8a2be9fe56d7d86052b6077add34463d3973
1831 F20101204_AABXDP duke_d_Page_37.txt
d956b327f1da8ec25d94da58baeec991
d18d12958e2aa58cd73da15ee218172334712cca
F20101204_AABXNJ duke_d_Page_42.tif
03c4725fab0f0d2becae44b57c31d741
2aa358c53b66424ddd98658b412bd3b969ad5a5d
77519 F20101204_AABXIN UFE0017720_00001.mets FULL
8e056093617386728fbe0ca85540b356
d9deccf690915712b1c63c0c0acc234387e66818
34347 F20101204_AABXSH duke_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
efc1604cf488a8969cce3f14541299e2
37f4b7dc6a670d62332a754edf169379cc79d60c
F20101204_AABXDQ duke_d_Page_38.tif
6d5ff4df6b52d2b334a9bb177b2aa5ce
4cdfcbe78a7cd5bd11b4e93876041441bd4006ac
F20101204_AABXNK duke_d_Page_46.tif
fd470d019597348eafc8efb960507a58
2d67143099c32cda887e5383cf55c4e7d3c76b7e
35270 F20101204_AABXSI duke_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
54ca40eb40c04f3ad5cd370409a8a0be
b98323daf154d54a60a67e9fdfcdec606eb8b939
F20101204_AABXDR duke_d_Page_22.tif
535ce248c28ed6c7f56211565e68d23a
0b392256f473a829e6eacc577f9e41bfed0b6199
F20101204_AABXNL duke_d_Page_48.tif
6774a8a773a593e03f52135c93399b19
6e26deec2d16f78f9f961018db5f076336a95772
7883 F20101204_AABXSJ duke_d_Page_65.QC.jpg
558407350b56a7277a16c5f663814564
63c9d700f0956b77941e733c6b8764317b00c5f9
F20101204_AABXDS duke_d_Page_65.tif
41da0baa7430fa5565113e1494049c07
0456d8172315a5f97acf0bfca150caee86c69f91
F20101204_AABXNM duke_d_Page_49.tif
78e77c2ebc4711a8f387aa8f510dce03
90af88482290fc6bd01b55b66b499c12fcc9d523
4549 F20101204_AABXIQ duke_d_Page_02.jpg
530f10690203ce03cf4b4b07abfd9d38
ba3a6e3e7fa70c1f0f3bcceee8139256afcf49e5
1763 F20101204_AABXSK duke_d_Page_30thm.jpg
5d80091da3d66abf2fb64ae543dcd53b
2bb4f450272e0f370c61c1e3982672a07a734d8d
9468 F20101204_AABXDT duke_d_Page_63thm.jpg
66b68f5bf6adb209d6d52a555c0b98a4
d2d3a77d7e64832ec92a552265d6b19e14d5a11f
F20101204_AABXNN duke_d_Page_50.tif
974a3439856df681f4fe6a4258a1ff00
90ca2c565f2d85acf47ea08b6a5c7a198f04ff8c
3080 F20101204_AABXSL duke_d_Page_51thm.jpg
1b5fecb6d767a6616db7c3e86a75f43e
b48977c221c04a1fbdaf84d7f3f48827c4887239
101436 F20101204_AABXDU duke_d_Page_33.jp2
ae25be4f730d8a81d402830ab5b9eb3b
f2b976efa09a68eb10c02ccaaa93e2a5ab736fbe
F20101204_AABXNO duke_d_Page_52.tif
dfb0362b8f1d4292c09ffbacc0c81d49
4e58991cb148e143f92a0aa9cf825b78204df2ea
6115 F20101204_AABXIR duke_d_Page_03.jpg
8aff50cd69994acadab074a6e637036e
4652991545311ff3d4998165486b8938c57627ac
29325 F20101204_AABXSM duke_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
87079d76085853e42c261715749542ed
aab748640e9d899adf1696b656101c51501dd362
565 F20101204_AABXDV duke_d_Page_51.txt
2ce3e8099fdf9ad459104c8105999de7
3f7f63a8a815ee8d4ede8f181458be355430702c
F20101204_AABXNP duke_d_Page_53.tif
e63d06951e74cb71345ab8325a904599
20a2819a0b7a87824141546adb80b5311d447e36
29035 F20101204_AABXIS duke_d_Page_04.jpg
8b45c1508148bbc150cfe35fad57af19
131c4ea56ad863f7987acc640bc71db1ef869606
4045 F20101204_AABXSN duke_d_Page_36thm.jpg
f508bb48aa4a32507b4fa4f25034c7a3
ae586e97c679b6363ec69e3bfc3fe799b99578d9
F20101204_AABXNQ duke_d_Page_54.tif
2eb429c9208b3493dda51611bc326fa8
b7f01cac566722e247420b942f2e3518897982a5
104542 F20101204_AABXIT duke_d_Page_05.jpg
5e36dc36cca89ab725c2a348affe8ed6
19b63780b90618098a5c2decb2556a71c2151c12
10431 F20101204_AABXSO duke_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
172b7b2bf14af582bf27375da561013b
75afbc652f4c842f746f89aa5fdc619f3920f7d4
32770 F20101204_AABXDW duke_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
50d8ccb7405d3a8b2b7fc71cc0d8aa69
ae0d42cebcb22b601bfe486e2c6236f2ef2df887
F20101204_AABXNR duke_d_Page_55.tif
982a7c64429b0e5c3214c1f86253aa11
2beb9be9a33a80a53c0f5c98929525b714df37b4
85540 F20101204_AABXIU duke_d_Page_07.jpg
97f08477b37604b96c1c47ddb7d4d489
974b144fca9ae43339334da5222b775eb481734f
9228 F20101204_AABXSP duke_d_Page_61thm.jpg
98dee1fe6d1dcec0db0a9ccc9c98dff6
0717c2d6e1091d4ed6a3ccf320372d57871bf2d2
33465 F20101204_AABXDX duke_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
681582d89299a9513eadc8611fbd8c21
939ed4cf1ffcff794744e038c9d951e3b63ca392
F20101204_AABXNS duke_d_Page_56.tif
179114db6a0b761df9af316c5615375f
bc2e3c9cb30d1455fb9628dd412e838bdbb770f6
80649 F20101204_AABXIV duke_d_Page_09.jpg
d61f00ab277013b1ef09eb74af6b5036
7078741be96585715556beb98b4362099d182595
39572 F20101204_AABXSQ duke_d_Page_62.QC.jpg
ab0d1df43d64a58db2f58827a4acf047
e4a8a8cd9a9e752b57efe05b6756df25475e398c
110941 F20101204_AABXDY duke_d_Page_55.jp2
e4fce37d348901a3bf85a1ac1f4fb419
6f6f842b607013dae6dc14351cf7529c39a17614
F20101204_AABXNT duke_d_Page_57.tif
209a17f3da472f45407d4be2ffe51d82
123ed0cb2c941aac90cf40634194f454b226d3a8
66096 F20101204_AABXIW duke_d_Page_10.jpg
4da03b698246ce466b59dfd9da08a7a9
97183fa011519c239f7902a7419829096e7b8eb8
33692 F20101204_AABXSR duke_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
5c391f8351848def84d654aac4ba5e27
21d112cb8a28f0140f03e7c59150386e687377e6
12087 F20101204_AABXDZ duke_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
0b3b4bf43abdc7e5fdbfa463caf86241
ab61bf86d92947634536d7ef4e40a92b578a4a77
F20101204_AABXNU duke_d_Page_58.tif
1079ea23508113d75ecd817f5208b2c7
f7225a9429fc47eeb586c005e56e14a16a54e2f4
91800 F20101204_AABXIX duke_d_Page_11.jpg
202d3b926c2943bb49d5c43dcbfd977b
ef23deab6079d81a2ba763d9d9b19f241d86c626
8149 F20101204_AABXSS duke_d_Page_35thm.jpg
abd404c6f093df582f9d7926b014c445
fb43a193e8830784ed423bfe8d3f4a26a35f222f
F20101204_AABXNV duke_d_Page_59.tif
bed916f0bea0d5eb5621a1ad6c692bff
b436b3139689d865eecd4b382e60440aecf16797
108141 F20101204_AABXIY duke_d_Page_12.jpg
5ef2e0377f587b4bd916e54dcf54fb79
b2a9864a97e2b856f3805dcfba7fc8c2768deb21
7776 F20101204_AABXST duke_d_Page_33thm.jpg
a3e940ae60bf32fbab6442708f06c8d5
e100971e774f69775a7b30af6802eae0221f9615
F20101204_AABXNW duke_d_Page_60.tif
765d7d57a7e04bf8557597c422eb23f4
9a968027c7ed1ed38cf8754ea9680b1125376c10
47246 F20101204_AABXGA duke_d_Page_24.pro
8e19fe242519cea3aca43cf9b3ba7696
dabd98846a2f9fa4b8232271373cbe1881914a9d
103482 F20101204_AABXIZ duke_d_Page_13.jpg
461a85523dffa4cf6b9da6754c57ec4e
f68736173cc0d7b0dca74a60ed06a6db313c502e
24278 F20101204_AABXSU duke_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
221a6239db9fa952dd22072be0dec4f4
b6bec775a9ccb76ed527794f3630df136b756564
F20101204_AABXNX duke_d_Page_62.tif
c26698a2336f835b1551bbe51d948463
e49e437ee430997da2b8efe3ce1daeb56c0ab679
8079 F20101204_AABXGB duke_d_Page_15thm.jpg
bfdf01350efc739cdcd5d3f29e43e885
5cfdc1b524c10468c5c0da1ef4d4b072f60c17be
3059 F20101204_AABXSV duke_d_Page_50thm.jpg
90399b04ea9f6e1ff2a7819f4d26f863
383324f3dcf2233915f8f83b53e78adf6602f8c0
F20101204_AABXNY duke_d_Page_63.tif
faa18215d5407ad713351a6a778b3faa
60aceb22601ca7a0f7d92e38a8a8c66a24abefad
1952 F20101204_AABXGC duke_d_Page_18.txt
b6b29e1a6517b9a471c19e55e35cf080
585c33f419c17346f818d94bbe54ffb2102ee712
8196 F20101204_AABXSW duke_d_Page_22thm.jpg
202e59d915382b46593441f791dab43e
ad5c4ddd2bbef107cecb0ce506b1f8910594398b
116349 F20101204_AABXLA duke_d_Page_20.jp2
d9c6a101bb028bf3f3f4726fbc93c212
bdbd2f39f2195077cce2e2fff98ba8736a1cc9b3
F20101204_AABXNZ duke_d_Page_64.tif
5d8289f668efdef0e06c66c9661ac3eb
17e3e7cf52a87a5a3521df88467c406813523be3
414 F20101204_AABXGD duke_d_Page_47.txt
7e3299f025e95091b3c89b10135e2a6a
b8be6ad348c3455503ff211553d7f57fd8f28ca2
33300 F20101204_AABXSX duke_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
ea51968ad3abe71d15e41e7cbfe6272d
ed2f7ac5f8978ba484df0f89c425c9eb67316d9f
111290 F20101204_AABXLB duke_d_Page_22.jp2
675dfdc13cec4e56a1bdd2d9fc7873b9
db87661718fce300ad1396b30342745f3608cf15
27225 F20101204_AABXGE duke_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
33dad96ab9000afa801a1a3265accbb1
fd527c2523e4152ada57644dc0d6908ba99065c8
3115 F20101204_AABXSY duke_d_Page_52thm.jpg
5b64e06b056ac6ff585c3fe5979b1890
176990503d9b26571e1c003c099c6ff51f36b12f
104438 F20101204_AABXLC duke_d_Page_24.jp2
f9b5ba6dc06ce6228d061bdc6110d35e
e635482a379511f2fb064e9ddf57775aca6a5c3b
30983 F20101204_AABXGF duke_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
46291132a39540ea3b2f8f5784863499
d7cd3db366eef20031e8319b8686e9aea9734644
1702 F20101204_AABXQA duke_d_Page_09.txt
5cff95bd0353289ded4fe68f5d885d93
d8087bd5b292d1bf5aaa53c1e529348cf0107bc7
99888 F20101204_AABXSZ UFE0017720_00001.xml
9321f9116de4277e1f3ae94e8cbf2a87
3c61cfc67ed6c25bc00ee35c1d5a7c828512be17
111054 F20101204_AABXLD duke_d_Page_25.jp2
2a4c0094d49b48bbb5708cb286945fe9
32b6ec99375ac29a4ff9bc8adce4ffccad7eefaa
103718 F20101204_AABXGG duke_d_Page_15.jpg
bc56790fafdfd91b9cccccabd4169c85
bc875a93a226bcad8f6f7c9388204a4cac531e74
1232 F20101204_AABXQB duke_d_Page_10.txt
bbb5772489beda8033d9d691ad70ed74
f6914b1ae26aadf0b43f769a15da9b3f9ea63cef
86311 F20101204_AABXLE duke_d_Page_27.jp2
c1cda611280a0145536849342558c298
10bfbef174c909aba4458944088487aa10b4aa21
1986 F20101204_AABXGH duke_d_Page_65thm.jpg
bf877afbeb7b620641a75204f350703b
c2acfd72a6292353148f2a5a6624790271ed9661
F20101204_AABXQC duke_d_Page_11.txt
070b4ef5ffaa2a0d3306b38a2b72e8cb
037135ebd48171e306706b1c6651b63af5bed414
9660 F20101204_AABXVA duke_d_Page_62thm.jpg
774c7152fdfca6ade13a8ae6a72beeb2
f30bcf615a80c2f5d3d2d7d9fa472514a269c3c9
14535 F20101204_AABXLF duke_d_Page_29.jp2
505d71c65daa4ccfdc8a2f08765f8973
4d2a4d7d19dfec0553fd0ddeb12ad8ed2cadd5b3
140065 F20101204_AABXGI duke_d_Page_62.jp2
7a16da68832829b1ddd3b26339513431
adc6a610a9a61de901de78c9d2e802371223175d
37619 F20101204_AABXVB duke_d_Page_64.QC.jpg
25ecee6984fedc4a595fae4bb6ccfad6
949a0a96699cfc9165901dc031c1bea554dee403
14735 F20101204_AABXLG duke_d_Page_31.jp2
448a077d2b6b7c90f2b11d88f22e25fb
620df2bb3cd6ba93f3fecf9e328e75ca55f98193
25082 F20101204_AABXGJ duke_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
ae2b2c738bc6ac122c48f819a784ab03
2eae61daa6ad3b7a26accecd481accb5c4824a1b
2039 F20101204_AABXQD duke_d_Page_12.txt
6e39efc1f1bb0df18f1614f5370194c1
e51513d092854efc51262e0282bc29b7822da184
9599 F20101204_AABXVC duke_d_Page_64thm.jpg
0a12f0eb5e44aa5a70dbc78ef8069d23
9fc12dc098d340d8b894f9ce61af9f5b1bc2cc2d
92425 F20101204_AABXLH duke_d_Page_32.jp2
a0b467e6166bfc9bd39db24f32e1896e
22807fb3dde4728528992185f41f21125bf72262
6424 F20101204_AABXGK duke_d_Page_09thm.jpg
e7d0a918d96473120c6b646b1347d160
aa792f706dcd1474a7cf68af14e4157faedf7272
F20101204_AABXQE duke_d_Page_14.txt
93e2b04413669ab09d2ca0d9634d6e83
88c0c211dbed09a71d4169b3ba12f08d494e6e50
1051985 F20101204_AABXLI duke_d_Page_35.jp2
5be41934ddc76ae74ecffb9f944122f7
b9cb1f22b0b24a57204f91a58ab0e6be7fe3d9a6
49606 F20101204_AABXGL duke_d_Page_18.pro
f7705c561c3fed953cdf30826a30cb84
9c7842151b19e5b0d0c2997e910a1ae54e8116cc
1769 F20101204_AABXQF duke_d_Page_16.txt
66fd572e0812c44cf04e8ece3185f5b2
7a559bda9783bded91f9bfc00a54fd0cdf8f9bab
54323 F20101204_AABXLJ duke_d_Page_36.jp2
83b91ddd36336d0328ee84223a2c89c6
5f7fd41c57773b6fb4e1589c49f63c57dc824c83
95093 F20101204_AABXGM duke_d_Page_37.jp2
dfb9014481ae1a7514957ded059352bc
56b7bc94b592b6918530267b07486610fea6e917
2031 F20101204_AABXQG duke_d_Page_17.txt
f00339b2455f47c485df444ccddbb3a3
4fbb5a68c3cfb3fcf52e8c3852636173e90667de
110275 F20101204_AABXLK duke_d_Page_39.jp2
adf259305c23c14a7557c45d376422c4
bb404419cf3cffbb6215289015b404542e29d15f
1864 F20101204_AABXGN duke_d_Page_29thm.jpg
0d29fd22831ede94f0bad656b579a797
029816c0ece55b5164569db4bc7b96c836f9938d
1997 F20101204_AABXQH duke_d_Page_19.txt
8fc30952b307290145e349d160ec8941
19212199b1e077dd7005b7cb73a0115c21d92ccc
109972 F20101204_AABXLL duke_d_Page_40.jp2
342bba879d2b3740e19eb9eeb3c4fa14
f4ddfa822b4ec5cef907ef9026f399ba301eba27
98974 F20101204_AABXGO duke_d_Page_16.jp2
916f19d01f8f03acf6392d6c7e224044
35c0e627ca0bf827334009ed331791aedec8b5e8
2061 F20101204_AABXQI duke_d_Page_21.txt
941a05868e1f5957af5b5539328feb15
37c5cc9e2758b32bb97819141ea6a929a17a936a
106708 F20101204_AABXLM duke_d_Page_41.jp2
5220828571b6efaf8b82db66ba04d72e
575c5d11c3bfcbad6c0200a130deaf27e942b3fe
2616 F20101204_AABXGP duke_d_Page_42thm.jpg
5bd04f45f35f629aaf0153ef73f2f67e
a05e8ff8fd854a54b8a779d4052f7199e3d0260e
F20101204_AABXQJ duke_d_Page_22.txt
b2861946f53c3eb959366e168e43273c
cf23aaeea43b8d8ec89d05434ca1615f119f951c
30790 F20101204_AABXGQ duke_d_Page_52.jp2
6deef7c79ddd4fa05e39b5a6144b965c
bcc39ea4f9e66bf9bc3c1257577f524f9fe3fbc9
1894 F20101204_AABXQK duke_d_Page_23.txt
adca1d9ba0286968cca62a888f889e65
0df9faa4821b8f5b978389a09e4bee95433a5f71
33516 F20101204_AABXLN duke_d_Page_42.jp2
ae3e8c408befdfc56b680a385a5bcb37
9986374e820952e149c6df2239453fda3727fc97
59133 F20101204_AABXGR duke_d_Page_60.pro
0640cd690c1e2daca1f7179b18e84a35
c545a1efb14961c2db9fc99d236f445add9d0eda
1943 F20101204_AABXQL duke_d_Page_24.txt
166918e0ac1ff48e52d688a8e18cebd6
f83b91c3a1e0b13342471e8ed0971d25fee1c6bf
327359 F20101204_AABXLO duke_d_Page_43.jp2
86ce5617a635faf0e7546a19c704f7b8
3382a49baa1cc7cbd5411b134b39e85cba0e1424
7530 F20101204_AABXGS duke_d_Page_16thm.jpg
d71a4815889b06edb9c8716340f516f6
9ff49a8a35478c61027b82e4dff03da1ff05218d
F20101204_AABXQM duke_d_Page_25.txt
7400a7d156a0054e3e9d1cf285b22221
808c894bf462cd4849cad85020a636873472ba16
325483 F20101204_AABXLP duke_d_Page_45.jp2
d3a339af84f0f96448c33f988ef731c8
c1e0f82796e70c3aadfcf29b90885162df0e0c81


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017720/00001

Material Information

Title: Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017720:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017720/00001

Material Information

Title: Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017720:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FAMILY FACTORS, ADHERENCE, AND METABOLIC CONTROL INT YOUTH WITH
TYPE 1 DIABETES.














By

DANNY C. DUKE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006




























Copyright 2006

by

Danny C. Duke



































To my family, whose sacrifices made my education possible.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my mentor and chair, Dr. Gary R. Geffken. Also,

my appreciation goes to Adam Lewin and Laura Bimbo, for their assistance with data collection;

and to Dr. Janet Silverstein, Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology, for allowing us to recruit

families from the pediatric diabetes clinic. Finally, thanks are due to my committee members, Dr.

Sheila Eyberg, Dr. Michael Perri, and Dr. William Perlstein.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............_ ..... ..__ .............. vii..


LIST OF FIGURES ............_...... .__ ..............viii...


AB STRAC T ................ .............. ix


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Overview of Diabetes .............. ..... .... ........ .. ........ ... ...................
Treatment and the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) ................... ....2
Measures of Adherence ................ .............. .................. ...............4
Measures of Metabolic Control ................... ................... .. ........ ....... ........7
Relationships between Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control ................7
Diabetes Specific Family Measures............... ..........................1
Externalizing, Diabetes Specific Family Functioning, Adherence and Metabolic
Control .............. ...............14....
Sum m ary ................. ...............14.......... ......


2 RE SEARCH QUE ST IONS .............. ............... 17....


Question 1: Family Factors Predicting Metabolic Control ................... .. ................ ..17
Question 2: Adherence Mediating between Diabetes-Specific Family Factors and
M etabolic Control. ............. ....... .......... .. .. ... .. ........1

Question 3: Family factors mediating between child externalizing and metabolic
control. ............. ............. .... .. .. .... .........1

Question 4: Adherence mediating child externalizing behaviors and metabolic
control? ................ ...............18.................


3 M ETHODS .............. ...............22....


Participants and Settings............... ...............22
Procedure .............. ...............22....
M measures ................... ........... ...............23.......

Demographic Questionnaire ................. ...............23.................












Diabetes-Specific Family Measures ................. ...............23................
Diabetes Family Behavior Scale (DFB S) ................. ................ ....._.23
Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC). ................. ............. .......24
Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ) ................... ...........24
Child Behavior............... .... .. .............2
Child Behavior Checklist .............. ...............25....
Measurement of Adherence .....__ ................. ........._._ ......... 2
Measure of Metabolic Control .....__ ................. .........__ ........ 2


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............27....


5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............44...............


Interpretation of Results ................. ..... ... .............4
Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions .....__ ................ ............._.._47


REFERENCES .............. ...............50....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. .............56......

















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Demographic Characteristics. ............. ...............36.....

4-2 Means and Standard Deviations for Age, HbAlc, Duration of Diabetes, and Income........37

4-3 Intercorrelations between HbAlc, Diabetes Family Measures, Adherence, and
Externalizing. ............. ...............38.....

4-4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc from Diabetes-Related Family
Factors and Adherence. .............. ...............39....

4-5 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc from Parent and Child Report of
Adherence ........... ..... .._ ...............40...

4-6 Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc: Adherence Mediating the
Relationship between Family Factors (DFBC) and Metabolic Control (HbAlc): Final
Block of the Regression. ............. ...............41.....

4-7 Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc: Family Factors (DFBC) Mediating
the Relationship between Child Extemnalizing and Metabolic Control (HbAlc): Final
Block of the Regression. ............. ...............42.....

4-8 Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc : Adherence Mediating the
Relationship between Child Extemnalizing and Metabolic Control (HbAlc): Final Block
of the Regression. ................. ...............43.............

















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Theoretical model of adherence mediating family factors and metabolic control. ..............19

2-2 Theoretical model of family factors mediating externalizing and metabolic control. .........20

2-3 Theoretical model of adherence mediating externalizing and metabolic control. ..............21

4-1 The relationship between family factors (DFBC) and metabolic control (HbAlc)
partially mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP). .............. ...............33....

4-2 The relationship between externalizing and metabolic control (HbAlc) fully mediated
by family factors (DFBC). ............. ...............34.....

4-3 The relationship between externalizing and metabolic control (HbAlc) fully mediated
by adherence (Parent DSMP). .............. ...............35....
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FAMILY FACTORS, ADHERENCE, AND METABOLIC CONTROL INT YOUTH
WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES

By

Danny C. Duke

December 2006

Chair: Gary Geffken
Major: Psychology

Considerable research has examined the relationship of family variables and

adherence to metabolic control in pediatric populations with type 1 diabetes, with most

studies finding that these constructs were only weakly related to metabolic control.

Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes are often noncompliant with their

prescribed treatment regimens. Clinical evidence suggests that poor adherence leads to

poor metabolic control and conversely that compliance with a diabetes treatment regimen

predicts good metabolic control. Inadequate metabolic control leads to physiological

complications (e.g., retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy) at an earlier age. Our study

examined the ability of a combined battery of diabetes-specific family functioning

measures (e.g., family responsibility, parental support, guidance, warmth, and criticism

specific to diabetes care) to predict metabolic control (health status). One hundred twenty

children and parents, who presented in a pediatric diabetes clinic, completed four

measures of diabetes-specific family functioning, and separate adherence interviews.









Overall, combined with demographic variables, these measures predicted approximately

44% of the variance in metabolic control. Examination of parent and child reports of

adherence showed that, while controlling for demographic variables, parent report

accounted for 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control, while child report did not add

significantly to the variance accounted for in metabolic control beyond parent report.

Adherence was found to partially mediate the relationship between child metabolic

control and perceptions of parental nagging, criticizing, and arguing about diabetes

specific tasks. Family variables were found to partially mediate the relationship between

externalizing and metabolic control and adherence was found to fully mediate the

relationship between child externalizing and metabolic control. Our data suggest that

reports of adherence behaviors are strongly related to a child's health status independently

and through important pathways of family functioning. These data suggest that an

increased and comprehensive focus on assessing and monitoring family behaviors related

to adherence is critical for optimizing health-status outcomes.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Overview of Diabetes

The incidence of diabetes in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide

(Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group, 1986; EURODIAB ACE

Study Group, 2000; Onkamo et al., 1999). This disease adds significantly to public

health care costs and profoundly affects individual quality of life, having treatment

demands that are often complex and unrelenting. Diabetes is one of the most common

chronic diseases in school-aged children, affecting about 151,000 young people in the

United States, or about 1 in every 400 to 500 youth under 20 years of age. With the peak

incidence of type 1 diabetes occurring at puberty (Feingold & Funk, 1997), the

prevalence of type 1 diabetes in the U. S. is increasing with approximately 30,000 new

cases of type 1 diabetes diagnosed annually (Engelgau & Geiss, 2000).

Pancreatic beta cells are insulin-producing bodies within the pancreas that are

responsible for producing the insulin necessary for the body's metabolism of glucose.

Type 1 diabetes is thought to result from an autoimmune process that leads to the

destruction of the insulin producing beta cells. The typically acute onset develops over a

period of a few days to weeks. The percentage of beta cell destruction ranges from 60 to

80% at the time of clinical symptom presentation (National Diabetes Data Group, 1995;

Notkins & Lernmark, 2001). Without insulin, cells are unable to metabolize sugars

present in the bloodstream. As a means of compensating for the body's lack of insulin

production, individuals with diabetes require insulin via subcutaneous inj sections.









Additionally, maintaining near normal blood-glucose levels requires intensive and often-

complex management, including frequent blood-glucose monitoring and regular exercise,

and dietary and insulin adjustments based on blood-glucose levels (American Diabetes

Association, 2003).

Treatment and the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)

To avoid periods of elevated blood sugar (hyperglycemia), the American Diabetes

Association (ADA) guidelines recommend that individuals with type 1 diabetes maintain

blood glucose levels of 80 tol20 mg/dL. Hyperglycemia can lead to long-term

complications, including retinopathy, hypertension, neuropathy, nephropathy, and

cardiovascular disease (ADA, 2003). Profound hyperglycemia associated with

insufficient insulin can result in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a lethal condition if not

promptly treated with insulin and fluids (Feingold & Funk, 1997). The Diabetes Control

and Complications Trial (DCCT) identified an empirical relationship between intensive

insulin therapy and reduced complications (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial

Research Group, 1987; 1993; 1994). This randomized, controlled clinical trial showed

that for patients with type 1 diabetes, the risk of the development and progression of

retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy is reduced 50 to 75% by intensive treatment

regimens when compared to conventional treatment regimens. For example, Zhang,

Krzentowski, Albert, & Lefebvre (2001) found that, among patients in the DCCT (ages

13 to 39) with mean HbAlc < 6.87% (good control), 90% remained free of retinopathy.

However, in patients with a mean HbAlc > 9.49% (poor control), complications

developed in 57% of the patients. In a study of 195 adolescents, participants who were

assigned an intensive therapy regimen (administration of three or more inj sections per day

or use of an insulin pump, adjustment of insulin based on blood-glucose levels, at least









four blood-glucose tests per day, diet, and exercise) showed delayed onset and slower

progression of retinopathy compared to individuals in a conventional therapy (one or two

insulin inj sections and self monitoring of blood glucose at least twice per day).

Additionally, intensive therapy also reduced the risk of the development of

microalbuminuria, which is a precursor to the development of diabetes-related

nephropathy (Diabetes Control and Complications Research Group, 1994).

To prevent long-term complications, the DCCT research group recommended

intensive insulin and monitoring therapy for adults and adolescents as young as 13 years

old (Diabetes Control and Research Group, 1993, 1994). While intensive therapy reduces

the risk of diabetes-related complications and high HbAlc levels, it is a complex and

demanding regimen for children and families. Physicians typically prescribe complex

daily regimens that include insulin inj sections, blood-glucose monitoring, diet and

exercise. It is expected that these behavioral adjustments be integrated into the patient' s

daily routine. Data indicate that children and adolescents are often noncompliant with

many of these recommendations. A nine-year follow-up study by Kovacs and colleagues

(1992) established that 45% of adolescents engage in some significant form of

noncompliance during adolescence. These findings were before the publication of DCCT

research, before intensive insulin therapy was routinely prescribed. As children and

adolescent medical regimens become more intense and complex, understanding

adherence becomes an increasingly important facet of treatment.

Past research has often failed to account for the behavioral contributions of the

child to reciprocal parent-child interactions necessary to administer such complex

treatment regimens. There are many problematic child behaviors that may contribute to










poor regimen adherence. Achenbach (1991) categorized childhood problems into the two

broad dimensions of internalizing and externalizing. Internalizing encompasses behavior

problems characterized by anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal, while externalizing

behavior problems are characterized by aggression and antisocial behavior. Limited

research has examined relationships between child psychopathology, family functioning

and metabolic control. Work by Northam et al. (2005) found that in a sample of

adolescents with diabetes, those with high blood sugars had higher levels of externalizing

behaviors than those with good and low blood sugars. Conversely, Cohen et al. (2003)

found that lack of internalizing behaviors significantly predicted adherence in an

economically disadvantaged population.

Measures of Adherence

Haynes (1979) defined compliance as the extent to which a person' s behavior

coincides with medical or health advice. Johnson (1993) maintains that defining

adherence (or compliance) with the childhood diabetes regimen is difficult due to the

multitude and complexity of the regimen behaviors. This has hindered the development

of an accurate and reliable measure of adherence for youth with diabetes.

Adherence to diabetes treatment regimens is multidimensional, with research

demonstrating that a patient' s behavior with regard to one aspect of the diabetes regimen

is not predictive of the same patient' s behavior in relation to other components of the

regimen (Glasgow, McCaul, & Schafer, 1987; Johnson et al 1986; Kavanagh, Gooley, &

Wilson, 1993). Adding to the obfuscation, there is not universal agreement on explicit

standards for measuring adherence. Methods range on a continuum from direct to indirect

(La Greca, 1990). Intuitively, the most accurate method of assessment would be

observation of diabetes care behavior. However, the behavioral observational approach is










impractical for the clinical scientist practitioner since the complexity of the diabetes

treatment regimen would require intense scrutiny of numerous behaviors over extended

periods of observation. Indirect measures of adherence behavior offer an alternative

means of assessment. One approach involves obtaining patient self-reports or parental

reports of adherence (Anderson, Auslander, Jung, Miller, & Santiago, 1990). La Greca

(1990) cautions about generalizations from self-reports due to extensive variability in

their detail and comprehensiveness. Johnson, Silverstein, Rosenbloom, Carter, and

Cunningham (1986) developed a 24-hour recall interview to quantify adherence

behaviors. Interviewers ask patients and parents, over a series of three 20-minute

structured phone interviews, to describe diabetes-management behaviors during the

previous 24-hour period. Statistical analyses resulted in indices of adherence. Broadly

speaking these indices covered different aspects of glucose testing, insulin administration,

diet, and exercise constructs. Significant correlations between parent and child report was

documented in separate analyses (Freund, Johnson, Silverstein, & Thomas, 1991;

Johnson et al., 1986; Spevack, Johnson, & Riley, 1991). Advantages of the interview

include a minimization of recall errors, improved reliability, and the ability to capture a

non-reactive example of the child' s adherence. However, the 24-hour recall interview is

difficult to implement in a clinical setting, due to its reliance on multiple interviews (3

child, 3 parent) and complex scoring system (McNabb, 1997). The resources required to

conduct interviews and analyze data (e.g., time and manpower) are not typically available

to healthcare providers. Additionally, despite the comprehensiveness of the 24-hour recall

interview, strong associations between adherence and HbAlc were not supported in a










longitudinal analysis of approximately 200 children using the measure (Johnson, Kelly,

Henretta, Cunningham, Tomer, & Silverstein, 1992).

The Self-Care Adherence Inventory (SCAI) (Hanson, Henggeler, & Burghen

1987), a semi-structured interview that assesses adherence to type 1 diabetes treatment

regimens, provides an alternative to the 24-hour recall interview (Hanson et al., 1987;

Hanson, DeGuire, Schinkel, Kolterman, Goodman, & Buckingham, 1996). The interview

is administered to the patient by an individual familiar with the requirements of the

diabetes regimen. The SCAI content areas include glucose testing, dietary behaviors,

insulin adjustment, and hypoglycemia preparedness. The authors found that the SCAI

related to HbAlc on three separate administrations

(partial r = -0.28, -0.25, and -0.20, p < 0.001).

The SCAI was further refined and the Diabetes Self Management Profile (DSMP)

was developed by Harris and colleagues (2000). The DSMP consists of structuredd

interviews of children/adolescents and parents with diabetes, consisting of 23 questions,

that assess five areas of diabetes management, including: insulin administration/dose

adjustment, blood-glucose monitoring, exercise, diet, and management of hypoglycemia.

The DSMP is designed to access diabetes self-management over the preceding three

months. Investigators found good internal consistency and inter-observer agreement

(Harris et al., 2000). The predictive validity (r = -0.28, p < 0.01) for metabolic control

with the DSMP was consistent with data from the SCAI, however, the measure was

shown to only account for 7.8% of the variance in metabolic control (HbAlc) (Harris et

al., 2000).









Measures of Metabolic Control

While adherence is a behavioral construct, metabolic control is a biological assay

of health status. The widely accepted standard of measurement for metabolic control is

the glycated hemoglobin Alc test (GHB/HbAlc). HbAlc is a measure of glucose bound

to specific hemoglobin molecules within red blood cells. The amount of glucose bound to

such hemoglobin molecules is directly proportional to the concentration of glucose in the

blood. Therefore, HbAlc provides an estimate of the average blood glucose

concentration. Since red blood cells live for approximately 90 days this provides an

estimate over the preceding 8 tol2 weeks. The DCCT observed an average HbAlc of

7.2% for individuals in the intensive treatment group compared to 9.0% in the

conventional treatment group, indicating that individuals in the intensive insulin therapy

group were under better metabolic control.

Relationships between Family Factors, Adherence, and Metabolic Control

Despite the Eindings from the DCCT, most studies fail to aind high or even

moderate correlations between regimen adherence and diabetes metabolic control

(Glascow et al., 1987; Hanson et al., 1987; Hanson et al., 1996; Harris et al., 2000;

Johnson et al, 1986, 1992, 1993, 1994; Kavanagh et al., 1993; Schafer, McCaul, &

Glasgow, 1986; Spevack et al., 1991). An explanation for this discrepancy might result

from examination of the instrument used to measure adherence. Most studies of

adherence have measured an individual's behavior in relation to an ideal treatment

regimen, and have not examined variations from individual prescriptions (La Greca,

1990). Additionally, if a patient' s prescribed treatment regimen was ineffective, perfect

adherence would not be expected to relate to good metabolic control (Johnson, 1992).

Currently, there is no specific, standardized set of self-care behaviors applicable to all









children with diabetes. It is difficult to measure congruity of behaviors that are not

uniformly defined in operational terms (McNabb, 1997). Johnson (1993) maintains that

only weak relationships exist between metabolic control and behavior. Nevertheless,

clinical evidence indicates adherence is a significant predictor of metabolic control. For

example, data from a residential treatment program for youth in poor metabolic control

demonstrate a significant mean reduction in HbAlc when the treatment regimen is

delivered in a controlled environment (Geffken, Lewis, Johnson, Silverstein,

Rosenbloom, & Monaco, 1997). Glascow et al. (1987) suggested that the relationship

between adherence and metabolic control is not always straightforward, and regimen

adherence must be examined in the context of other factors. Anderson and Coyne (1993)

argue that examination of adherence in chronically ill children must include the parent' s

involvement in treatment tasks. When considering the complexity of diabetes

management, it is intuitive to consider that familial relationships and parental behaviors

will relate to child health status.

The relationships between family functioning, diabetes adherence and metabolic

control have been the focus of several analyses (Anderson et al., 1990; Lewin et al.,

2006; Liss, Waller, Kennard, McIntire, Capra, Stephens, 1998; McKelvey et al., 1993;

Schafer et al., 1986; Waller et al., 1986). For example, Hauser and colleagues (1990)

found that children's perceptions of family conflict, as measured by the Family

Environmental Scale (FES), were the strongest predictor of poor adherence with multiple

diabetes treatment regimen components (r = 0.50,

p < 0.001). In addition, the study suggested that child and parent perception of family

cohesion was related to both improved adherence, and comprehensive levels of patient









adherence. Likewise, a study found that child report of parent-child conflict (measured by

the Parent-Child Scales) contributes to the unique variance in predicting both adherence

(r = 0.50, p < 0.001) and metabolic control (r = 0.31, p < 0.05) (Miller-Johnson, Emery,

Marvin, Clarke, Lovinger, & Martin, 1994). Similarly, Hanson, De Guire, Schinkle,

Henggeler, and Burghen (1992) found that both disease-specific and general family

factors related to treatment adherence. Another study by Leonard et al, (2002) using the

Youth Self-report, found that individuals who reported higher levels of attention

problems, and higher levels of aggressive and delinquent behaviors reported worse

metabolic control as measured by HbAlc. However, there is some controversy in the

literature regarding the optimal method for measuring family interaction. Several studies

indicate that general measures of family functioning (general family stress, conflict,

support, etc.), such as the Family Environmental Scale (FES) and the Family Assessment

Measure (Skinner, Steinhauser, & Santa-Barbara, 1983), do not correlate with metabolic

control (Hauser et al., 1990; Liss et al., 1998; Schafer, Glasgow, McCaul, & Dreher,

1983).

It is possible that certain weaknesses in family functioning are distinct from

general family function, being limited to the issues and concerns specific to dealing with

the demands of diabetes. Measures of family functioning that are specifically designed

for families of children with diabetes (e.g., family support specifically related to diabetes

care) may be more sensitive in detecting relationships between family functioning and

metabolic control. While the FES and other general measures of family interaction may

assess characteristics such as family organization, the DFB S includes assessments of

diabetes specific family dimensions, e.g. organization specific to diabetes management.









For example, Liss et al. (1998) found that children hospitalized with DKA and their

parents reported less diabetes family support than did a clinic control group. However,

the Family Assessment Measure (a non-diabetes-specific measure of family functioning)

detected no differences in family functioning between the DKA and clinic control groups.

Additionally, Schafer et al. (1983) found that diabetes-specific family measures were

more predictive of adherence than were more general measures of family interaction

(mean correlation between general measures of family interaction and adherence M~<

0. 10; mean correlation between diabetes-specific measures and adherence M~= 0. 18. The

Diabetes-Specific Family Behavior Scale (DFBS; Waller et al., 1986), the Diabetes

Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC; Schafer et al., 1983), and the Diabetes Family

Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ; Anderson et al., 1990) are three measures of

diabetes-specific family support. There follows a description of these three measures

specifically developed to assess diabetes-specific family interaction.

Diabetes Specific Family Measures.

Waller and colleagues (1986) developed the Diabetes-Specific FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily Behavior

Scale of child/adolescent report of diabetes-specific family behaviors. The study

investigated whether the child' s overall perception of family diabetes-specific support

predicted metabolic control. The scale developed by Waller and colleagues (1986) was

based on the assumption that diabetes specific family behaviors consisted of three distinct

child perceived dimensions: parental warmth/caring, parental guidance/control about

diabetes, and diabetes related problem solving. Children and adolescents, ages 7 to 17,

completed the measure with results indicating that, for children under age 13 (n = 20),

there was a significant association (r = 0.50, p < 0.001) between the child's perception of

family-guidance/control and metabolic control (HbAlc), the same finding was not










present for older adolescents. Examples of DFB S items that correlated significantly with

metabolic control were as follows:

Whether the parent watches while the child tests for blood sugar (r = 0.55)
Whether the parent writes down blood sugar tests (r = 0.52)
Whether the child has someone in the family to talk to about diabetes (r = 0.55)

The correlation between metabolic control and warmth/caring was 0.36, p < 0.03 across

the entire age span of 7 to 17 years. Waller et al (1986) found the problem solving scale

did not account for a significant portion of the variance in metabolic control. Further

examination of the DFB S by McKelvey and colleagues (1993) replicated the correlation

between family guidance/control and diabetes metabolic control. However, the child

report of guidance/control accounted for only 1.4% of the variance in HbAlc and

problem-solving was again not related to metabolic control.

The Diabetes FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily Responsibility Questionnaire (Anderson et al. 1990) is a

questionnaire that measures mother and child perceptions of division of responsibility for

diabetes tasks related to treatment. In this study the measure was administered to both

children/adolescents (age 6-21) and their mothers. Responses for each item could be

classified into one of three possible patterns from the dyad scores: (1) perfect agreement

(both mother and child agree as to how the responsibility is shared), (2) overlap

(disagreement where both mother and child claim responsibility), and (3) no

responsibility (neither mother nor child report responsibility for a task). Factor analysis

revealed a three-factor solution representing these domains: general health management

tasks, regimen tasks, and social presentation of diabetes. The investigators found that

mother-child dyad scores indicating that no one takes responsibility for diabetes

management, and lower adherence scores based on parental report explained 13.4% of









the variance in HbAlc. Parent-child dyad scores indicating that neither the parent nor the

child takes responsibility for diabetes management correlated significantly with

metabolic control (r = 0.32, p < 0.001). A study by Wysocki and colleagues found that

children and adolescents reporting increased diabetes management responsibilities

relative their developmental level on a composite index of the DFRQ and the Diabetes

Independence Survey demonstrated less treatment adherence and marginally worse

metabolic control (Wysocki, Linschlid, Taylor, Yeates, Hough, & Naglieri, 1996).

Schafer and colleagues (1983) developed the Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist

(DFBC) to assess patient and family member report of supportive (positive) and

unsupportive (negative) diabetes-specific family behaviors. Administration of the DFBC

to 34 adolescents demonstrated significant relationships between negative DFBC scores

and adolescent's self-reported adherence to diet, care in measuring insulin, and frequency

of glucose testing.

However in a subsequent administration of the DFBC by Schafer and colleagues

(1986) wherein adolescents (ages 12 to 19) and adults (ages 20 and older) completed the

measures, negative family behaviors (related to glucose testing, insulin inj sections, and

diet) were inversely correlated with adherence in adults, but neither positive nor negative

DFBC scores were significantly related to adherence in adolescents. Reports of

unsupportive DFBC scores (criticism, nagging, argumentative statements) were

marginally correlated (r = 0.24, p < 0. 10) with metabolic control in adults but not in

adolescents. However, it may be that this study lacked statistical power to detect such a

relationship, as only 18 adolescents were included in this sample. Nevertheless, Hanson

and colleagues (1987) suggested that the measure was the best instrument available for









assessing parental support of the diabetes treatment regimen, despite the need for larger

sample sizes to demonstrate its predictive validity.

In a study evaluating a parent-adolescent teamwork approach to diabetes

management, families in the intervention group reported significantly less conflict

(measured by the DFBC) and were in better metabolic control (Anderson, Ho, Brackett,

& Laffel, 1999). In addition, Schafer et al (1983) demonstrated a significant relationship

between negative DFBC scores and adolescent's self-reported adherence.

Across all three diabetes-specific measures of family functioning were child

perception of parental support or lack of support of the diabetes treatment regimen.

McKelvey et al (1993) noted appropriate parent supervision of diabetes care tasks, as

measured in the DFRQ, may be closely related to the diabetes regimen guidance/control

dimension of the DFBS. The assessment of supportive and unsupportive parent behaviors

in the DFBC focuses on the same dimension of parent involvement in the disease

treatment. Children who perceive their parents as supportive of their diabetes care have

better metabolic control; children who perceive parents as negative, critical, and

unsupportive of their diabetes management are in poorer metabolic control, as are

families where no one takes responsibility for diabetes management. While the

relationships of the DFBC, DFRQ, and DFBS to metabolic control are small, in several

cases, the diabetes-specific family factors explain larger percentages of the variance in

metabolic control than adherence measures (SCAI, DSMP, 24-hour recall). Lewin et al

(2006) suggest that when examined concurrently, these measures may delineate a

construct of diabetes specific family factors related to adherence. Diabetes-specific









family functioning is a critical construct to evaluate to optimize metabolic control and

adherence outcomes (Anderson et al., 1997).

Externalizing, Diabetes Specific Family Functioning, Adherence and Metabolic
Control

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was first published in 1978 (Achenbach &

Edelbrock, 1978). The CBCL has become a widely used standardized parent report

questionnaire for 4- to 18-year-olds that exhibits excellent psychometric properties

(Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL provides separate scores for Intemnalizing and

Externalizing. These broad band psychological problems have been identified repeatedly

in multivariate analyses (Achenbach, 1991) and reflect a distinction between depressed,

fearful, and inhibited over-controlled behaviors known as Internalizing, and aggressive,

oppositional, and antisocial under controlled behaviors known as Extemnalizing. There

exists very little work that has examined the relationships between child

psychopathology, family functioning, adherence and metabolic control. Our clinical

experience has led us to hypothesize that externalizing behavior has important

relationships to diabetes specific family functioning and adherence in explaining

metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes.

Summary

Recent research has found that more intensive diabetes regimens are related to

better metabolic control and that worse metabolic control leads to increased diabetes

related complications at an earlier age of onset in children and adolescents. Accordingly,

physicians have prescribed increasingly more demanding regimens. Clinicians believe

that the extent to which patients follow treatment recommendations is integral in

producing positive health outcomes. However, most existing psychological research only









weakly supports these assumptions. Prior research suggests the absence of a strong

relationship between behavior and health status in children and adolescents with type 1

diabetes. Methodological problems (e.g. the measurement of adherence, the complexity

and quality of the medical regimen, disease specific verses general measures of family

functioning, and the reliability of health-status indicators) are often cited as explanations

for these Eindings. Additionally, multiple studies fail to show strong relationships

between individual diabetes-specific family factors related to adherence and metabolic

control .

McKelvey and colleagues (1993) suggested that incorporating the DFBC and

DFRQ scales with the DFBS might demonstrate a stronger connection between family

adherence and HbAlc. To date, only Lewin and colleagues (2006) have examined the

relationship between this combination of diabetes-specific family-related adherence

variables and metabolic control with encouraging results. Lewin et al (2006) found 34%

of the variance in metabolic control was accounted for by diabetes-specific family factors

after accounting for demographic variables. Further they hypothesized and successfully

demonstrated a mediation model wherein adherence partially mediated the relationship

between a composite of diabetes-specific family variables, and metabolic control.

Limited research has examined the contribution of children' s externalizing behavior to

metabolic control. The first aim of this investigation was to replicate the Eindings of

Lewin et al (2006) by accounting for a significant portion of the variance in metabolic

control through the use of diabetes-specific measures of family functioning related to

disease management. The second aim was to replicate a model wherein adherence

partially mediates the relationship between diabetes-specific family variables and









metabolic control. The third aim was to examine a proposed mediation model wherein

family factors mediate the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control. Our

fourth and final aim was to examine a proposed mediation model wherein adherence

mediates the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control.















CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Question 1: Family Factors Predicting Metabolic Control

Does a combination of diabetes-specific family functioning measures predict significant

variance in metabolic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes?

Metabolic control will be predicted by the following adherence-related family

variables: both parent and child deny responsibility for diabetes care tasks (DFRQ); child

perception of the parent providing guidance/control over diabetes care (DFBS); child

perception of parental warmth and caring surrounding the diabetes treatment regimen

(DFBS), and child perceptions of parental nagging, critical, and argumentative behavior

related to diabetes management (DFBC).

Question 2: Adherence Mediating between Diabetes-Specific Family Factors and
Metabolic Control.

Does adherence mediate the relationship between diabetes-specific family factors and

metabolic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes?

Our study tested a model that proposes that diabetes-specific family factors affect

metabolic control through pathways of adherence. Adherence is expected to mediate the

relationship between diabetes-specific family factors and metabolic control (Figure 2-1).

Question 3: Family factors mediating between child externalizing and metabolic
control.

Do diabetes-specific family factors mediate the relationship between externalizing and

metabolic control?










Our study tested a model that proposes that children's externalizing behaviors

affect metabolic control through pathways of family factors. It is expected that child

externalizing behaviors will mediate the relationship between family factors and

metabolic control

(Figure 2-2).

Question 4: Adherence mediating child externalizing behaviors and metabolic
control?

Does adherence mediate the relationship between child externalizing and metabolic

control?

Finally, our study tested a model that proposes that child externalizing affects

metabolic control through pathways of adherence. It is expected that adherence will

mediate the relationship between externalizing behaviors and metabolic control (Figure

2-3).

















Adherence




Figure 2-1. Theoretical model of adherence mediating family factors and metabolic
control .


Family
Factors


Metabolic
Control











Externalizing
Behaviors


Metabolic
Control


Figure 2-2. Theoretical model of family factors mediating externalizing and metabolic
control .


Family
Factors












Externalizing
B ehavi ors


Metabolic
Control


Adherence


Figure 2-3. Theoretical model of adherence mediating externalizing and metabolic
control .















CHAPTER 3
IVETHOD S

Participants and Settings

Participants were 120 children with type 1 diabetes and their parents, attending an

outpatient pediatric diabetes clinic affiliated with the University of Florida in Gainesville,

Florida. The sample was composed of 51 boys and 69 girls, ages 8.25 to 18.75 (M~=

13.92, SD = 2.71). The ethnic distribution was 72.5% Caucasian, 15.0% African

American, 10.0% Hispanic, and 2.5% representing other ethnic groups. More mothers

(78.3%) participated in the study compared to fathers (13.3%) and other parents (8.4%).

The mean family income was 46.6K with a standard deviation of 29. 1K.

Procedure

Parents and children were recruited based on the following study inclusion

criteria: eight to eighteen years of age, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 6

months, living with and accompanied by their primary caretaker, no evidence of mental

retardation. Of families approached, 82.8% agreed to participate. A signed informed

consent, approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida, was

obtained from each participant. Both parents and children completed self-report

questionnaires and one face-to-face structured interview while waiting for their scheduled

appointment. Trained graduate or undergraduate psychology students conducted

interviews individually with both caregiver and child of approximately 10-15 minutes in

length. Instructions were given to both for completing the self-report measures. Self-

report measures were typically completed within 30-40 minutes. Children and









adolescents were prompted to answer questions honestly and were reminded that no one

else in their family would see their answers. Blood samples for measuring HbAlc were

drawn by trained clinic staff as part of each patient' s routine visit.

All research assistants underwent extensive training with the first author in the

administration of these measures, which included: (1) attending an instructional meeting,

(2) observing 3 administrations of the measures, (3) administering the measures 3 times

with in vivo observation and supervision.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

Parents were administered a brief demographics questionnaire to assess the

child's age, sex, race, age at onset of diabetes, family structure, parental education,

occupation and estimated income.

Diabetes-Specific Family Measures

Diabetes Family Behavior Scale (DFBS).

The DFB S is a measure of perceived family support for children and adolescents

with type 1 diabetes (Waller et al., 1986). This 60-item questionnaire has three subscales

(warmth/caring, guidance/control, and problem solving) that are used to determine the

child' s overall perception of family support. Scores from the guidance/control and

warmth/caring subscales correlated with metabolic control (.50 and .36, respectively), but

the problem-solving subscale did not (.08). Test-retest reliability coefficients for the

warmth/caring and guidance/control subscales are good (.79 and .83, respectively), but

not so for the problem-solving subscale (.51). Analyses indicate stronger reliability with

younger children (under age 13) that have been attributed to developmental differences

(McKelvey, Waller, North, et al, 1993). Children and adolescents completed the warmth









and caring, and the guidance and control scales of this measure. Overall, the DFB S has

good internal consistency (alpha coefficient of 0.82). Cronbach's a in our study was

acceptable (a = .74).

Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC).

This instrument is a measure of both supportive and non-supportive behaviors by

the family and their effects on the child's diabetes self-care regimen (Schafer et al.,

1986). This forced-response, 16-item scale is designed for ages 12 to 64 and consists of a

summative response scale from 1 (never) to 5 (at least once a day). Summary scores are

generated for both the positive/supportive and negative/unsupportive domains. A positive

summary score can range from 9 to 45 and the negative summary scale can range from 7

to 35. Schafer and colleagues (1986) found that negative behaviors of family members

reported by the adults with diabetes were inversely correlated with adherence (glucose

testing, diet, and insulin injections). Parents and, children and adolescents completed this

measure. Cronbach's alpha coefficients range from .67 to .80 for the positive/supportive

scale and .74 to .82 for the negative/unsupportive scale (Schafer, personal

communication, 1998). Internal consistency for this sample was acceptable

(a = .64).

Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ).

The Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire is used to assess the family

sharing of responsibilities for diabetes treatment (Anderson et al., 1990). Both the parent

and child independently complete this measure consisting of reading 17 statements

concerning diabetes management tasks and indicating which family member has the

responsibility for the specific task. A parent-child dyadic score is calculated to determine










patterns of agreement and disagreement within the dyad. Factor analyses of this 17-item

measure indicate three domains of 1) general health management tasks, 2) regimen tasks,

and 3) social presentation of diabetes. Internal consistencies for the three subscales were

acceptable, ranging from .69 to .85 (Anderson et al., 1990). For this sample internal

consistency was acceptable (a = .75).

Child Behavior

Child Behavior Checklist

Achenbach and Edelbrock first published the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in

1978 and 1979. The CBCL has become a widely used standardized 118-item parent

report questionnaire for 4-18 years olds that exhibits excellent psychometric properties

(Achenbach, 1991). It was designed to assess the behavioral problems and social

competencies of children 4 to 18 years of age. The CBCL groups 20 competence items

into 11 Problem Scales (including eight Syndrome Scales) and four Competence Scales.

The CBCL also yields two broadband, higher order psychopathology scales, internalizing

and externalizing. The CBCL is widely used in both clinical and research settings

because of its demonstrated reliability and validity, ease of administration and scoring,

and applicability to clinical, nonclinical, and cross-cultural samples (Achenbach, 1991;

Cohen, Gotlieb, Kershner, & Wehrspann, 1985; Drotar, Stein, & Perrin, 1995; Sandberg,

Meyer-Bahlburg, &Yager, 1991). Cronbach's a in our study were strong (u = .94)

Measurement of Adherence

The DSMP is a refined version of the SCAI (Harris et al., 2000). The DSMP is a

structured interview, consisting of 23 questions, with an administration time of

approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Questions assess five areas of diabetes management,

including: insulin administration/dose adjustment, blood-glucose monitoring, exercise,










diet, and management of hypoglycemia. To minimize response bias, the interviewer

begins with a statement indicating that imperfect diabetes management is common.

Additionally, tasks for which nonadherence is more readily admitted (e.g. exercise) are

assessed first. Investigators found good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.76)

and inter-observer agreement (94%). Parents and children were interviewed separately.

Internal consistency was found to be acceptable in our study for both parents (a = .86)

and children (a = .65).

Measure of Metabolic Control

During regularly scheduled appointments, patients in the Outpatient Diabetes

Clinic have their HbAlc routinely checked as part of their normal check-up. Blood

samples were analyzed using a Bayer DCA 2000+. HbAlc for individuals without

diabetes typically ranges between 4%-6.5% on this instrument.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Preliminary analyses were conducted to test for relations between demographic

variables and study variables (HbAlc, adherence, and family functioning) for purposes of

control in subsequent hierarchical multiple regression. HbAlc was correlated with child's

age (r = .23,

p < .01), duration with diabetes (r = .27, p < .01), and family income (r = -. 16, p = .09).

Child age was significantly correlated to the DFBC (r = .25, p < .01), to the DFBS

guidance and control subscale (r = -.57, p < .01), and the parent DSMP (r = -.37, p < .01).

Family income was found to be significantly correlated to both the child (r = .22, p < .05)

and parent DSMP (r = .21, p < .05). Duration of diabetes was significantly related to

HbAlc (r = .27, p < .01) and to parent DSMP (r = -.26, p < .01). All other demographic

variables were not significantly related to measures of diabetes-specific family

functioning, parent reports of child externalizing, or to reports of adherence.

Table 4-1 provides the sample characteristics on sex and ethnicity and Table 4-2

reports means, standard deviations, and ranges for child's age, HbAlc, duration with

diabetes, and income. The mean age and duration with diabetes for children in our study

was approximately 13.92 (SD = 2.7) and 4.80 (SD = 3.81) years, respectively. Mean

income was 46.0K (SD = 29.1K), and the mean HbAlc for the sample was 8.93% (SD =

1.99%), which is in the elevated range. No sex differences were found in HbAlc (t (120)

= 1.17, p = 0. 19, mean for boys: 9. 18% (SD = 1.77%); mean for girls: 8.75% (SD =

2. 13%). Likewise, no sex-differences were identified on measures of diabetes-specific










family functioning or self-report of adherence (oc = .05). Intercorrelations between

variables are found in table 3. All subsequent regression analyses were assessed for

collinearity by calculating tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF) and no

significant collinearity was identified (Bowerman and O'Connell, 1990).

Study Aim 1: Regression of Metabolic Control (HbAlc) on Family Functioning and
Adherence

To examine the relation between multiple measures of diabetes-specific family

factors and metabolic control, we conducted a hierarchical multiple linear regression. We

expected that when examined simultaneously, measures of adherence-related diabetes-

specific family factors would be predictive of significant variance in metabolic control.

To control for the influence of the child' s age, family income, and duration with diabetes,

we entered these variables into the regression equation in steps 1 and 2. To partition out

the variance shared by duration of diabetes and child's age these variables were

controlled in separate blocks, with child age and estimate of family income controlled in

the first block and duration of diabetes controlled in the second block. Combined, child

age and family income accounted for 6.7% of the variance in metabolic control, F (2,

102) = 3.69, p < .05. The unique variance accounted for by duration of diabetes was

5.3%, F (3, 101) = 4.62, p < .01. Considering that there were no a priori suppositions

regarding the magnitude of the relationship between each family functioning variable and

metabolic control, each family predictor was entered simultaneously into block 3 of the

regression. Combined, the four diabetes-specific family functioning variables (i.e.

parental warmth and caring (DFBS), guidance and control (DFBS), critical and negative

parenting (DFBC), and no-responsibility for the treatment regimen (DFRQ), explain an

additional 13.3% of the variance in metabolic control (HbAlc), F (7, 97) = 4.70, p < .01.









Lastly, child and parent report of adherence were entered into the model, which

combined accounted for 18.6% of the variance in metabolic control, F (9, 95) = 8.27, p <

.01. All together, the model predicted 43.9% of the variance in metabolic control

(HbAlc). The final model demonstrated significant contributions from child report of

critical, negative, unsupportive parents, and parent report of adherence (Table 4-4).

Study Aim 2: Does Adherence Mediate the Relationship Between Diabetes-specific
Family Factors and Metabolic Control?

To determine whether child report of adherence accounted for unique variance in

metabolic control beyond that of parent report, a regression equation was calculated

controlling for demographic variables in blocks one and two, with parent and child report

of adherence entered in the third and fourth blocks respectively. Parent report of

adherence explained 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control (HbAlc), F (4, 101) =

16.48, p < .01. Child report failed to account for significant variance in metabolic control

above and beyond that accounted for by parent report, explaining only .6% of the

variance in metabolic control. The complete model for both parent and child reports of

adherence, while controlling for demographic variables, accounted for 40. 1% of the

variance in metabolic control (See table 4-5). Since warmth and caring, guidance and

control, lack of responsibility, and child report of adherence, failed to add significantly to

the model in this and previous analyses, these variables were excluded from subsequent

analyses.

Next, Baron and Kenny's (1986) guidelines for mediation were followed to test

the influence of the remaining diabetes-specific family factor (DFBC) on metabolic

control via adherence. The following criteria are necessary for mediation: (I) the

predictor (DFBC) should be significantly associated with the outcome (HbAlc), (II) the









predictor should be significantly associated with the mediator (adherence), (III) the

mediator should be associated with the outcome variable (metabolic control), and (IV)

lastly, the addition of the mediator to the full model should significantly reduce the

relationship between the predictor and outcome variable. Baron and Kenny's first through

third criteria were met in previous analyses, see table 3. To examine Baron and Kenny's

next criteria, family functioning (DFBC) was entered after demographic variables, and

parent report of adherence was entered into the final block of the regression. The family

functioning variable (DFBC) was found to account for 12.6% of variance in metabolic

control (HbAlc), while parent report of adherence (DSMP) added 18.6% to the model.

Finally, family functioning was entered into the model while controlling for adherence

and demographic variables. The final model accounted for 40.2% of the variance in

metabolic control (Table 4-6). To examine the significance of change in the path

coefficient, a Sobel's z-score (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = -6.70, p < .001, and was

found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny's criteria for mediation. The path

coefficient between family factors and metabolic control remained significant while

controlling for adherence, thereby indicating partial mediation. Standardized coefficient

of Family Factors on Metabolic Control equals .204 for direct and .201 for indirect effect

(figure 4-4).

Study Aim 3: Regression Analysis to determine if Family Factors (DFBC) mediates
the relationship between Externalizing and Metabolic Control (HbAlc).

Baron and Kenny's (1986) guidelines for mediation were followed to test the

influence of child externalizing behaviors on metabolic control (HbAlc) via diabetes

specific family factors (DFBC). Child externalizing was entered into the regression, after









controlling for demographic variables, and was found to account for 5.6% of the variance

in metabolic control, F= 5.40,

p < .001. Next, family factors (DFBC) were entered into the model and were found to

account for 8.6% of the variance in metabolic control, F = 7. 11, p < .001. Finally, child

externalizing was entered into the model while controlling for family factors (DFBC) and

was found to account for a non-significant portion of the variance in metabolic control,

meeting criteria for full mediation (Table 4-7). To examine the significance of change in

the path coefficient, a Sobel's z-score (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = 2.67, p < .01, and

was found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny's criteria for mediation. The path

coefficient between externalizing and metabolic control became non-significant while

controlling for family factors, thereby indicating full mediation. The standardized

coefficients of externalizing on HbAlc equals .161 for direct, and .1 10 for indirect effect

(figure 4-5).

Study Aim 4: Regression Analysis to Determine if Adherence (Parent DSMP)
Mediates the Relationship Between Externalizing Behaviors and Metabolic Control
(HbA 1c).

Baron and Kenny's (1986) guidelines for mediation were followed to test the

influence of child externalizing behaviors on metabolic control via adherence. Child

externalizing was entered into the regression, after controlling for demographic variables,

and was found to account for 5.6% of the variance in metabolic control, F = 5.40, p < .01.

Next, parent reports of adherence (DSMP) were entered into the model and were found to

account for 22.2% of the variance in metabolic control, F = 13.24, p < .001. Finally,

externalizing was entered into the model while controlling for adherence and accounted

for a non-significant portion of the variance in metabolic control, indicating full









mediation (Table 4-8). To examine the significance of change in the path coefficient,

Sobel's z-score (Sobel, 1988) was calculated, z = 3.66,

p < .001, and was found to be significant, meeting Baron and Kenny's criteria for

mediation. Since the path coefficient between externalizing and metabolic control was

reduced to a non-significant effect while controlling for adherence, full mediation was

indicated. Standardized coefficient of DFBC on HbAlc equals .059 for direct and .212

for indirect effect (figure 4-6).























.405***

(.204*)


Type of Mediation ----- Partial
Sobel z-value ------------ -6.69526, p =.000001

Standardized coefficient of DFBC on HbAlc:
Direct: .204
Indirect: .201


.374***


-.614***
(-.538***)


Figure 4-1. The relationship between family factors (DFBC) and metabolic control
(HbAlc) partially mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP).












Type of Mediation ---- Full
Sobel z-value ---------- 2.671389, p =.007554

Standardized coefficient of Externalizing on HbAlc:
Direct: .161
Indirect: .110


.271**

(. 161)


Outcome
]Variable:
HbAlc




.405***
(.355***)


.310***


Figure 4-2. The relationship between externalizing and metabolic control (HbAlc) fully
mediated by family factors (DFBC).























.271**

(.059)


Type of Mediation ---- Full
Sobel z-value ----------- 3.66278, p =.000249

Standardized coefficient of Externalizing on HbAlc:
Direct: .059
Indirect: .212


-.614***
(-.593***)


Figure 4-3. The relationship between externalizing and metabolic control (HbAlc) fully
mediated by adherence (Parent DSMP).










Table 4-1. Demographic characteristics


Category

Male
Female

Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other


Percentage


42.5
57.5

72.5
15.0
10.0
2.5


Ethnicity







37


Table 4-2. Means and Standard Deviations for Age, HbAlc, Duration of Diabetes, and

Income .


Mean
8.93
13.92
57.54
46005.06


SD
1.99
2.71
45.71
29089.61


Minimum
5.00
8.25
6.00
6000.00


Maximum
>14.00
18.75
270.00
155000.00


HbAlc (%)
Age
Duration (Months)
Income











Table 4-3. Intercorrelations among HbAlc, Diabetes Family Measures, Adherence, and
Externalizing.


Variable
1 HbAlc.
2 Child adherence report
3 Parent adherence report
4 Warmth and caring
5 Guidance and control
6 No responsibility
7 Critical parenting
8 Child externalizing


1


2 3
-.378** -.614**
-.501**


-.1i
1.
.1


4
113 -.01
08 .0:
79* .1:
-.1S


5
81 -
73 .0
28 .0
93* -.0
-.1(


6 7 8
006 .405** .271**
)04 -.279* -.269**
)06 -.374** -.358**
49 -.324** -.320**
93* -.225* -.095
-.119 .005
-.310**


*p <. 05, **p< .01










Table 4-4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc from Diabetes-Related
Family Factors and Adherence.

Step Variables R2 R2 ~


.067


.067


1


3.6


;9*
.066
-.023
0*
.124*
12**
.058
.062
-.018
.224**
74**
-.058
-466**


Child Age
Income
2 .121 .053 6.1
Duration of diabetes
3 .253 .133 4.3
Warmth and caring (DFBS)
Guidance and control (DFBS)
Lack of responsibility (DFRQ)
Critical parenting (DFBC)
4 .439 .186 15.
Child reported adherence (DSMP)
Parent reported adherence (DSMP)

All standardized regression coefficients are from the final block of the equation.

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001










Table 4-5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc from Parent and Child
Report of Adherence.

Step Variables R2 2R F1
1 .067 .067 3.69*
Child Age .066
Income -.023
2 .121 .053 6.10*
Duration of diabetes .124
3 .395 .274 45.79*
Parent report of adherence -.520
4 .401 .006 1.05
Child report of adherence

All standardized regression coefficients are from the final block of the equation.
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001










Table 4-6. Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc: Adherence Mediating the
Relationship between Family Factors (DFBC) and Metabolic Control
(HbAlc): Final Block of the Regression.

Step Variables R2 2R F1
1 .067 .067 3.69*
Child Age .030
Income -.025
2 .121 .053 6.10*
Duration of diabetes .126
3 .371 .274 45.79**
Parent report of adherence (DSMP) -.492**
4 .402 .035 6.20**
Critical parenting (DFBC) .206


*p < .05, ** p < .01










Table 4-7. Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc: Family Factors (DFBC)
Mediating the Relationship Between Child Externalizing and Metabolic
Control (HbAlc): Final Block of the Regression.


AR2
.067


Step


Variables


3.69*



6.10*


.067


Child Age
Income


.103
-.085

.215*

.320**


Duration of diabetes

Family Factors (DFBC)

Externalizing (CBCL)


.245

.262


16.72**


.017


2.28


.138


*p < .05, ** p < .01







43


Table 4-8. Mediation Regression Analysis Predicting HbAlc : Adherence Mediating the
Relationship Between Child Externalizing and Metabolic Control (HbAlc):


Final Block of the Regression.


Variables


AR2
.067



.053


Step


3.69*



6.10*


.067



.121


Child Age
Income


.066
-.023


Duration of diabetes


.274 45.79**


Parent report of adherence
(DSMP)

Externalizing (CBCL)


.492**


.398


.003


.062


*p < .05, ** p < .0















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Interpretation of Results

The purpose of our study was to examine how behavioral variables including

adherence to the diabetes treatment regimen, child externalizing, and family functioning

specific to diabetes management related to metabolic control. First, we investigated the

relationship between a combination of diabetes-related family factors and metabolic

control. Regression analysis indicated that, taken together, diabetes-related family factors

accounted for 13.3% of the variance in metabolic control after controlling for

demographic variables. In addition, it is important to note that reports of adherence

explained significant variance in metabolic control. Our study replicated Lewin et al's

findings of diabetes related family factors and adherence significantly predicting

metabolic control.

Another goal of our study was to replicate adherence mediating the relationship

between diabetes-specific family factors and metabolic control. The proposed mediating

model suggests that negative family functioning processes have a deleterious impact on

children's adherence behaviors and subsequent metabolic control. This model posits that

the child's perception of critical and negative parenting around the diabetes treatment

regimen is related to adherence to a treatment regimen. Overall, children who reported

more negative and critical relationships with their parents were in worse metabolic

control and such relationships are mediated by poor adherence. We believe it is likely

that there is a reciprocal relationship between critical parenting and poor diabetes










regimen adherence, with families becoming trapped in a coercive cycle or struggle for

control (Patterson, 1974). An adolescent's nonadherent behaviors may elicit parent

criticism, which in turn can lead to further adolescent rebellion toward adherence.

Regression analysis supported our third hypothesis that adherence mediates the

relationship between externalizing and metabolic control. The mediating model suggests

that children's externalizing behaviors have deleterious affects on children's adherence

behaviors and subsequent metabolic control. This model suggests that externalizing

behaviors interfere with good metabolic control and compliance with the prescribed

treatment regimen. Overall, children with higher reported externalizing behaviors were in

worse metabolic control. Parental difficulty dealing with externalizing behaviors such as

stubbornness and arguing, are unlikely to help with a child's adherence. Poor adherence

may fuel the parent and child battleground. Difficulties with adherence to complex and

demanding treatment regimens may exacerbate general child oppositionality and further

thwart any support parents might provide in management aimed at better metabolic

control .

Finally, regression analysis supported our fourth hypothesis; that family factors

mediate the relationship between externalizing and metabolic control. The mediating

model suggests that externalizing is related to children's perceptions of critical and

negative parenting around diabetes and its relationship to poor metabolic control. This

model suggests that parent reported externalizing behaviors are linked to child reported

perceptions of negative parenting that includes criticizing, nagging, and arguing with the

child about diabetes related treatment tasks, leading to worsened metabolic control that

are shown, in aim three, to be largely through pathways of adherence. Overall children









with higher parent reported externalizing behaviors were in worse metabolic control.

Child externalizing behaviors may precipitate reciprocal negative behaviors from parents,

leading to increased family conflict that disrupts adherence processes and subsequent

metabolic control. It was shown that younger children who experienced parental warmth

had improved metabolic control (Davis et al, 2001), suggesting the reciprocal to be true.

Our study did not identify a significant association between child ratings of

parental guidance and control and metabolic control. However, given our sample mean

age of 13.92 years, this finding is not inconsistent with the extant literature, which

suggests that in adolescent populations, the relationship between parental

guidance/control and HbAlc is weaker (McKelvey et al., 1993; Waller et al., 1986). As

most adolescents strive for autonomy, parents may have less influence regarding whether

or not they attempt to provide guidance and control. This pattern suggests that while the

DFBS Guidance and Control Scale may have examined content independent from the

other scales, the construct was not related to metabolic control with this sample.

Additionally, our study did not find that the DFBS warmth and caring or responsibility

subscale was significantly related to metabolic control.

Consistent with Lewin et al (2006), significant relationships were found between

children reporting more critical, negative, unsupportive relationships with their parents

(regarding their diabetes management) and worse metabolic control. Also, parent and

child reports of adherence were strongly associated with metabolic control. Child report

of adherence did not significantly add to the variance accounted for in metabolic control

by parent report. Parent report of adherence accounted for 27.4% of the variance in

metabolic control, above and beyond demographic variables. However, the relationship is









reduced to 18.6% when family factors are controlled. The complete model did account

for 43.9% of the variance in metabolic control while controlling for demographic

variables.

Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions

Before implications of our study and speculations on future research are

discussed, it is important to note limitations of our study. Due to the correlational nature

of the data, causal relationships cannot be implied. However, ethically, a controlled

analysis could not be implemented since children cannot be randomly assigned to

supportive and unsupportive families. Secondly, families reporting to this clinic are

largely of low economic status and sponsored by state-funded insurance (State of Florida

Children's Medical Services). Results may not generalize to higher SES families. Third,

while children are informed that no parent or physician will see their results and are

encouraged to be as accurate as possible, there is the potential for report-bias on the

questionnaires and interview. Finally, administration of general family functioning

measures along with diabetes-specific questionnaires would have allowed for more

comprehensive comparisons with other similar studies.

Our study identified that reports of adherence are significantly related to

metabolic control. The use of adherence interviews may an important method to identify

those patients who are at risk for poor metabolic control. Such a preventative approach

may lead to more timely interventions, avoiding some of the risk associated with poorly

controlled diabetes. A reduction in HbAlc by 1% was associated with a 15 to 30%

decrease in the risk of microvascular and neuropathic complications of diabetes,

highlighting the significance of this difference (Diabetes Control and Complications

Research Group, 1987; ADA, 2003).









It is not a new concept, in a clinical context, that child behaviors may have

important implications for medical treatment, however an evidence-based examination of

this concept through research is still important. Our study highlighted the importance of

considering children's externalizing behaviors as they relate to other family factors,

children's adherence to their treatment regimens and metabolic control.

Importantly, adherence interviews used in our study can be completed in a

clinical setting, require minimal training to score and administer, and need little time to

complete. These brief screeners can identify families for behavioral health interventions.

Additionally, as there is variation in the complexity of the prescribed treatment regimen

that is largely clinically determined by the patient's ability to manage such regimens, it is

logical to posit that screening for behavioral suitability to the more complex regimens

would increase the success of more complex regimens.

Our data suggest that family behavior is significantly related to a child's health

status, especially when multiple aspects of family functioning related to regimen

behaviors are considered in making the assessment. Therefore, when identifying barriers

to adherence, clinicians should assess child perceptions of parental negativity, and child

externalizing behaviors in addition to assessing disease management behaviors.

The results of our study should also be considered during interventions for

children with poor metabolic control. Specifically, behavioral family-systems such as that

developed by Wysocki et al, (2006) seem most beneficial for these problems. Instead of

focusing exclusively on improving specific adherence behaviors, therapy should address

instrumental processes, such as improving family communication patterns and reducing

factors that promote and maintain argumentative interaction patterns specific to diabetes










management. Parent training should facilitate parenting described by Baumrind (1991) as

authoritative rather than authoritarian, indulgent or neglectful. In addition to a solid

understanding of issues surrounding diabetes treatment, therapists require process skills

to optimally address adherence problems in the context of improving family dynamics

related to diabetes management.

It is appropriate to conclude our study by reviewing the powerful finding that

parent report of adherence explained 27.4% of the variance in metabolic control, after

controlling for demographic variables, without directly measuring diabetes knowledge.

Congruent with clinical observations, adherence was highly related to metabolic control,

highlighting the importance of clinical assessments of regimen-specific adherence

behaviors and family factors to optimize metabolic control.

Future research should further examine the family functioning, adherence, and

metabolic control relations, identified in the mediation model from our study. For

example, this model may contribute to intervention studies of these relationships. Given

that improved health status and reduced diabetes-related complications are the clinical

goals, the aim should be to develop family models of adherence that optimize metabolic

control. Future analyses should examine other factors that might relate to diabetes family

functioning. For example, parents who already perceive themselves as overwhelmed

might be less likely to be supportive of and responsible for their child's diabetes

treatment regimen. Other examples include parent and child, anxiety and depression.

Lastly, as interactive patterns of behavior are unlikely to be unidirectional, future studies

should examine potential reciprocal interaction patterns between family variables,

adherence behaviors, and metabolic control that are specific to diabetes.
















REFERENCES


Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist / 4-18 and 1991 Profile.
Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, CS. (1978). The Child Behavior Profile. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 46, 478- 488.

American Diabetes Association. (2003). Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes
mellitus. Diabetes Care, 25, S33-S50.

Anderson, B. J., Auslander, W. F., Jung, K. C., Miller, J. P., & Santiago, J. V. (1990). Assessing
family sharing of diabetes responsibilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 477-492.

Anderson, B. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1993). Family context and compliance behavior in chronically
ill children. In N. A. Krasnegor, L. Epstein, S. B. Johnson, & S. J. Yaffer (Eds.),
Developmental Aspects of Health Compliance Behavior (pp. 77-89). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, B. J., Ho, J., Brackett, J., & Laffel, L. M. B. (1999). An office-based intervention to
maintain parent-adolescent teamwork in diabetes management: Impact on parent
involvement, family conflict, and subsequent glycemic control. Diabetes Care, 22, 713-
720.

Anderson, B. J., & Laffel, L. M. B. (1997). Behavioral and psychosocial research with school-
aged children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum, 10, 281-285.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1173-1182.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Cohen, N.J., Gotlieb, H., Kershner, J., & Wehrspann, W. (1985). Concurrent validity of the
internalizing and externalizing profile patterns of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 724-728.

Davis, C.L., Delamater, A.M., Shaw, K.H., La Greca, A.M., Eidson, M.S., Perez, M.S.,

Rodriquez, J.E., & Nemery, R. 2001. Parenting styles, regimen adherence, and glycemic control
in 4- to 10-year-old children with diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 26, 126-129.










Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1986). Diabetes control and
complications trial: Design and methodologic considerations for the feasibility phase.
Diabetes, 35, 530-545.

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1987). Results of the Feasibility
Study. Diabetes Care, 10, 1-19.

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1993). The effect of intensive
treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 977-986.

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1994). Effect of intensive diabetes
treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in adolescents
with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Diabetes control and complications trial. The
Journal of Pediatrics, 125, 177-188.

Drotar, D., Stein, R.E., & Perrin, E.C. (1995). Methodological issues in using the Child Behavior

Checklist and its related instruments in clinical psychology research. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 24, 184-192.

Engelgau, M. M., & Geiss, L. S. (2000). The burden of diabetes mellitus. In J. L. Leahy, N. G.

Clark, & W. T. Cefalu (Eds.), Medical Management of Diabetes Mellitus (pp. 1-17). New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.

EURODIAB ACE Study Group. (2000). Variation and trends in incidence of childhood diabetes
in Europe. Lancet, 355, 873-876.

Feingold, R. R. & Funk, J. L. (1997). Disorders of the endocrine pancreas. In McPhee, S. J.,

Lingappa, V. R., Ganong, W. F., and Lange, J. D. (Eds.), Pathophysiology of disease (pp. 423-
469). Stanford, CT: Appleton and Lange.

Freund, A., Johnson, S.B., Silverstein, J., & Thomas, J. (1991). Assessing daily management of
childhood diabetes using 24-hr recall interviews: Reliability and stability. Health
Psychology, 10, 200-208.

Geffken, G.R., Lewis, C., Johnson, S.B., Silverstein, J.H., Rosenbloom, A.L., & Monaco, L.
(1997) Residential treatment for youngsters with difficult to manage Insulin Dependent
Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10, 517-527.

Glasgow, R. E., McCaul, K. D., & & Schafer, L. C. (1987). Self-care behaviors and glycemic
control in type 1 diabetes. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 399-412.

Hanson, C. L., De Guire, M. J., Schinkle, A. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Burghen, G. A. (1992).










Comparing Social Leamning and Family Systems Correlates of Adaptation in Youths with IDDM.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 555-572.

Hanson, C. L., De Guire, M. J., Schinkel, A. M., Kolterman, O. G., Goodman, J. P., &

Buckingham, B. A. (1996). Self-care behaviors in insulin-dependent diabetes: evaluative tools
and their associations with glycemic control. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21, 467-482.

Hanson, C. L., Henggeler, S. W., & Burghen, G. A. (1987). Social competence and parental

support as mediators of the link between stress and metabolic control in adolescents with insulin-
dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 529-533.

Harris M.A., Wysocki T., Sadler M., Wilkinson K., Harvey L.M., Buckloh L.M., Mauras N., &

White N.H. (2000). Validation of a structured interview for the assessment of diabetes self-
management. Diabetes Care, 23, 1301-1304.

Hauser, S. T., Jacobson, A. M., Lavori, P., Wolfsdorf, J. I., Herskowitz, R. D., Milley, J. E.,

Bliss, R., Wertlieb, D., & Stein, J. (1990). Adherence among children and adolescents with
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus over a four-year longitudinal follow-up: II. Immediate
and long-term linkages with the family milieu. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 527-
542.

Haynes, R. B. (1979). Introduction. In R. B. Haynes, D. W. Taylor, & D. L. Sackett (Eds.),
Compliance in health care (pp. 1-10). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Johnson, S. B. (1992). Methodical issues in diabetes research. Diabetes Care, 15, 1658-1667.

Johnson, S. B. (1993). Chronic diseases of childhood: Assessing compliance with complex
medical regimens. In N. A. Krasnegor, L. Epstein, S. B. Johnson, & S. J. Yaffer (Eds.),
Developmental Aspects of Health Compliance Behavior (pp. 77-89). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Johnson, S. B. (1994). Health behavior and health status: Concepts, methods, and applications.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 19, 129-141.

Johnson, S. B., Kelly, M., Henretta, J. C., Cunningham, W. R., Tomer, A., Johnson, S. B.,
Silverstein, J., Rosenbloom, A., Carter, R., & Cunningham, W. (1986). Assessing daily
management in childhood diabetes. Health Psychology, 9, 493-501.

Johnson, S. B., Kelly, M., Henretta, J. C., Cunningham, W. R., Tomer, A., & Silverstein, J. H.
(1992). A longitudinal analysis of adherence and health status in childhood diabetes.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 537-553.

Kavanagh, D. J., Gooley, S., & Wilson, P. H. (1993). Prediction of adherence and control in
diabetes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 509-522.










Kovacs, M., Goldston, D., Obrosky, S., & lyengar, S. (1992). Prevalence and predictors of
pervasive noncompliance with medical treatment among youths with insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
31, 1112-1119.

La Greca, A. M. (1990). Issues in adherence with pediatric regimens. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 15, 423-436.

Leonard, B. J., Yuh-Pyng, J., Savik, K., Plumbo, P. M., & Christensen, R. (2002). Psychosocial
factors associated with levels of metabolic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Journal of
Pediatric Nursing, 17, 28-37.

Lewin, A. B., Heidgerken, A. D., Geffken, G. R., Williams, L. B., Storch, E. A., Gelfand, K. M.,
& Silverstein, J. H. (2006). The relation between family factors and metabolic control: The
role of diabetes adherence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 3 1, 174-183

Liss, D. S., Waller, D. A., Kennard, B. D., McIntire, D., Capra, P., & Stephens, J. (1998).
Psychiatric illness and family support in children and adolescents with diabetic
ketoacidosis: A controlled study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 536-544.

McKelvey, J., Waller, D. A., North, A. J., Marks, J. F., Schreiner, B., Travis, L. B., & Murphy, J.
N. III. (1993). Reliability and validity of the Diabetes Family Behavior Scale. The
Diabetes Educator, 19, 125-132.

McNabb, W. L. (1997). Adherence in diabetes: can we define it and can we measure it? Diabetes
Care, 20, 215-218.

Miller-Johnson, S., Emery, R. E., Marvin, R. S., Clarke, W., Lovinger, R., & Martin, M. (1994).

Parent-child relationships and the management of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 603-610.

National Diabetes Data Group. (1995). Diabetes in America. 2d ed. Bethesda, Md.: National

Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIH
publication no. 95-1468.

Northam, E. A., Matthews, L. K., Anderson, P. J., Cameron, F. J., & Werther, G.A. (2005).

Psychiatric morbidity and health outcome in Type 1 diabetes perspectives from a prospective
longitudinal study. Diabetic Medicine, 22, 152-157

Notkins, A. L., & Lernmark, A. (2001). Autoimmune type 1 diabetes: resolved and unresolved
issues. Journal of Clinical Investigation 108, 1247-1252.

Onkamo, P., Vaananen, S., Karyonen, M., Tuomilehto, J. (1999). Worldwide increase in










incidence of Type 1 diabetes- the analysis of the data on published incidence trends.
Diabetologia, 42, 13 95-1403.

Patterson, G.R. (1974). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J.

Mash, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp.267-
316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Sandberg, D.E., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F., & Yager, T.J. (1991). The Child Behavior Checklist

nonclinical standardization samples: Should they be utilized as norms? Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 124-134.

Schafer, L. C., Glasgow, R. E., McCaul, K. D., & Dreher, M. (1983). Adherence to IDDM

regimens: Relationship to psychosocial variables and metabolic control. Diabetes Care, 6, 493-
498.

Schafer, L. C., McCaul, K. D., & Glasgow, R. E. (1986). Supportive and nonsupportive family

behaviors: Relationships to adherence and metabolic control in persons with type 1 diabetes.
Diabetes Care, 9, 179-185.

Skinner, H.A., Steinhauser, P.D., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1985). The Family Assessment Measure.
Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, 91-105.

Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long

(Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 46-64).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spevack, M., Johnson, S.B., & Riley, W. (1991). The effect of diabetes camp on adherence

behaviors and glycemic control. In J.H. Johnson & S.B. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in child health
psychology (pp. 285-292). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Waller, D. A., Chipman, J. J., Hardy, B. W., Hightower, M. S., North, A. J., Williams, S. B., &

Babick, A. J. (1986). Measuring diabetes-specific family support and its relation to metabolic
control: A preliminary report. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25,
415-418.

Wysocki, T., Linschlid, T. R., Taylor, A., Yeates, K. O., Hough, B. S., & Naglieri, J. A. (1996).

Deviation from developmentally appropriate self-care autonomy: Association with diabetes
outcomes. Diabetes Care, 19, 119-125.

Wysocki, T., Harris, M. A., Buckloh, L. M., Mertlich, D., Lochrie, A. S., Taylor, A., Sadler, M.,










Mauras, N., & White, N. H. (2006). Effects of Behavioral Family Systems Therapy for diabetes
on adolescents' family relationships, treatment adherence, and metabolic control. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 928-938.

Zhang, Y., Krzentowski, G., Albert, A., & Lefebvre, P.J. (2001). Risk of developing retinopathy
in Diabetes Control and Complications Trial type 1 diabetic patients with good or poor
metabolic control. Diabetes Care, 66, 1275-1279.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Danny C. Duke was born on October 7, 1954 in Redlands, California. The oldest of

three children, he grew up living in Yucaipa and later in Placerville, California, where he

graduated from El Dorado High School in 1972. He owned a successful landscape

contracting business operating in the greater Sacramento, California area from 1973 until

2004. He has been married to his lovely wife (Vicki) since 1973 and they have two

children (Erin and Ryan). He earned his B.A degree in psychology from California State

University, Sacramento in 2002. He plans to complete his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology

and to pursue his clinical and research interests in pediatric psychology and teaching.