Camps for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have grown in size and scope since they first emerged in the 1920s. Anecdotal evidence suggests that attending camp with other youth with T1D is beneficial, largely attributed to sharing fun, active experiences and removing the isolation of living with diabetes. However, few studies have evaluated the psychosocial and medical impacts of T1D camp attendance during and after camp sessions. In addition, T1D camps have been a setting for numerous studies on a variety of T1D-related research questions not related to camp itself, such as testing novel diabetes management technologies in an active, nonlaboratory setting. This paper reviews the evidence of psychosocial and medical outcomes associated with T1D camp attendance across the globe, provides an overview of other research conducted at camp, and offers recommendations for future research conducted at T1D camp.

To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in participants with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry throughout the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSDPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire (MNSIQ) in adults with ‡5 years of type 1 diabetes duration. A score of ‡4 defined DPN. Associations of demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors with DPN were assessed. RESULTSAmong 5,936 T1D Exchange participants (mean 6 SD age 39 6 18 years, median type 1 diabetes duration 18 years [interquartile range 11, 31], 55% female, 88% non-Hispanic white, mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ] 8.1 6 1.6% [65.3 6 17.5 mmol/mol]), DPN prevalence was 11%. Compared with those without DPN, DPN participants were older, had higher HbA 1c , had longer duration of diabetes, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to have a college education and private insurance (all P < 0.001). DPN participants also were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P < 0.001), worse CVD risk factors of smoking (P 5 0.008), hypertriglyceridemia (P 5 0.002), higher BMI (P 5 0.009), retinopathy (P 5 0.004), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (P 5 0.02), and Charcot neuroarthropathy (P 5 0.002). There were no differences in insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor use, although DPN participants were more likely to have had severe hypoglycemia (P 5 0.04) and/or diabetic ketoacidosis (P < 0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONSThe prevalence of DPN in this national cohort with type 1 diabetes is lower than in prior published reports but is reflective of current clinical care practices. These data also highlight that nonglycemic risk factors, such as CVD risk factors, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower socioeconomic status, may also play a role in DPN development.Diabetic neuropathy is a prevalent complication in patients with diabetes and a major cause of morbidity and mortality (1). Among the various forms of diabetic neuropathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DPN) and diabetic autonomic neuropathies are by far the most studied (1).

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to &lt;8 years with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to &lt;8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits. RESULTS Approximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI −0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (−2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (−0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level &lt;70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P &lt; 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P &lt; 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.