Moderation analyses: significant results
| Moderators . | Domain (P) . | Subcategory analyses . |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology: longitudinal (L) vs. cross-sectional (C) | Diet (0.021) | L: (k = 2; r = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18–0.37); C: (k = 16; r = 0.15; 0.11–0.19) |
| Self-care continuous (Con) vs. categorical (Cat) | Overall analysis (0.001) | Con: (k = 32; r = 0.24; 0.21–0.28); Cat: (k = 14; r = 0.13; 0.07–0.18) |
| Medication (0.011) | Con: (k = 9; r = 0.20; 0.14–0.27); Cat: (k = 9; r = 0.09; 0.03–0.15) | |
| Glucose monitoring (0.010) | Con: (k = 9; r = 0.15; 0.09–0.22); Cat: (k = 6; r = 0.03; −0.03–0.10) | |
| Objective measure of self-care (O) vs. non-objective measure (N) | Glucose monitoring (0.036) | O: (k = 2; r = 0.22; 0.09–0.35); N: (k = 13; r = 0.07; 0.02–0.12) |
| Population: youth (Y) vs. adults (A) | Overall analysis (0.064) | Y: (k = 10; r = 0.29; 0.20–0.37); A: (k = 37; r = 0.19; 0.15–0.24) |
| Glucose monitoring (0.023) | Y: (k = 3; r = 0.27; 0.11–0.41); A: (k = 12; r = 0.08; 0.02–0.13) |
| Moderators . | Domain (P) . | Subcategory analyses . |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology: longitudinal (L) vs. cross-sectional (C) | Diet (0.021) | L: (k = 2; r = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18–0.37); C: (k = 16; r = 0.15; 0.11–0.19) |
| Self-care continuous (Con) vs. categorical (Cat) | Overall analysis (0.001) | Con: (k = 32; r = 0.24; 0.21–0.28); Cat: (k = 14; r = 0.13; 0.07–0.18) |
| Medication (0.011) | Con: (k = 9; r = 0.20; 0.14–0.27); Cat: (k = 9; r = 0.09; 0.03–0.15) | |
| Glucose monitoring (0.010) | Con: (k = 9; r = 0.15; 0.09–0.22); Cat: (k = 6; r = 0.03; −0.03–0.10) | |
| Objective measure of self-care (O) vs. non-objective measure (N) | Glucose monitoring (0.036) | O: (k = 2; r = 0.22; 0.09–0.35); N: (k = 13; r = 0.07; 0.02–0.12) |
| Population: youth (Y) vs. adults (A) | Overall analysis (0.064) | Y: (k = 10; r = 0.29; 0.20–0.37); A: (k = 37; r = 0.19; 0.15–0.24) |
| Glucose monitoring (0.023) | Y: (k = 3; r = 0.27; 0.11–0.41); A: (k = 12; r = 0.08; 0.02–0.13) |