Background: Optimal glycaemic control is essential in preventing diabetes related complications in children with diabetes. The school is an important component of care and support to achieve good outcome as children spend a considerable time in school. In some developed countries, there are guidelines and regulations on support and care of children with chronic diseases such as Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1 DM). In most developing countries where these regulations are not in place, parents have an important role to play in encouraging optimal care for their wards while at school, which include informing school authority, submission of care plan in collaboration with the healthcare team and providing equipment necessary for care task at school. Aim and Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the attitudes of parents in a developing country towards management of their children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) at School. Methods: Parents of all children with Type 1 DM seen at the endocrine unit of the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital were invited to participate. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Information on bio data, details of care in school and challenges experienced were documented and HbA1c was done for all children. Results: The Parents of eighteen children and adolescents with Type 1 DM participated in the study. The age range of the children was between 5 and 17.3 years, mean age of 12.37 ± 4.2 years. Mean duration of DM 3.37 ± 2.6 years and mean HbA1c was 10.02% ± 2.5%. All children except one attended school as day students. Two parents (11.1%) did not inform the school of child’s diabetes. No parent gave a written plan of diabetes care/treatment of hypoglycaemia in school and 4 parents (22.2%) did not make contact with school when child was in school. No child had a glucometers or took insulin to school. Five parents (27.8%) adjusted or omitted morning insulin dose to prevent hypoglycaemias in school. Fifteen (83.3%) children were on twice daily insulin injections. Six children (33.3%) are from high socioeconomic class. All responses were from mothers and 15 (83.3%) of responders had at least secondary education. Conclusion: This study demonstrates poor attitude and deficiencies in care of children living with Type 1 DM in school. There is need for education of parents and presentation of written plans for care of every child with Type 1 DM in school.
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic debilitating disease and the commonest type of diabetes in children. It requires complete dependency on insulin for every day control and survival. The incidence of DM is increasing worldwide even in children [
Complications of diabetes in children are prevented by maintaining optimal glycaemic control provided by optimal care at all times both at home and in school [
Lack of awareness of child’s condition by teachers could create misunderstanding and also erode the gains achieved with care at home. There have been reports of poor control and outcome in children with diabetes in most developing countries and several factors have been stated as reasons for this poor outcome amongst which are lack of insulin, lack of blood glucose monitoring and high cost of care [
The aim of this study was to assess the attitude of parents in a developing country towards management of their children living with diabetes while in school.
The study population consisted of all parents of children living with diabetes mellitus who attend the diabetes clinic at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital in the last five years. The hospital is the only tertiary hospital in the state and receives referrals on all subspecialties from other private and government hospitals from the state and neighbouring states. The diabetes clinic is run every Monday with the team on daily call.
Parents of all children with Type 1 DM seen at the Paediatric endocrine unit of the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital were invited to participate. The diagnosis of Type 1 DM was based on the ISPAD clinical Practice consensus guideline [
Data was collected over a three months period using a questionnaire. Information on bio data of child, parents and family was obtained. Details of care in school and challenges experienced during school related to diabetes care and communication between school and parents were documented. HbA1ic was done for all children included by the investigators at no cost using the Bio-RAD in2it Analyzer (UK) making use of the Bio-RAD system test cartridge. Primary care givers completed the interviewer administered questionnaires.
Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the ethics committee of the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital.
Data was entered into excel sheet and analysed using SPSS version 20.0. Clinical characteristics were described using mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and percentages for ordinal variables. Comparison was done using t-test and chi-squared test
At the time of this study, there were 28 children on follow up in the unit with diabetes mellitus. Twenty five (89.3%) had type 1 DM and Three (10.7%) had type 2 DM. Eighteen (72%) parents who had children or adolescents with Type 1 DM completed the questionnaire over the study period and were analysed.
In 17 (94.4%) cases the mothers completed the questionnaire. Six (33.3%) families were of high socioeconomic class. All children attended private schools and all attended as day students except one adolescent. 15(83.3%) of parents who completed the questionnaires were primary care givers and had minimum of secondary education.
The age range of children of participating parents was between 5 and 17 years with a mean age of 12.18 ± 1.7 and mean duration of diabetes was 3.12 ± 2.4 years. Nine (50%) were males. Fourteen (77.8%) of the subjects were on twice daily insulin schedule. Clinical characteristics of the children and parents are as shown in
This study has looked at attitude of parents towards care of their children living
All subjects | <10 years | ≥10 years | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 18 | 8 | 10 | |
Males | 9 | 6 | 3 | |
Females | 9 | 2 | 7 | |
Mean Age (SD) | 12.37 ± 4.2 | 7.98 ± 1.61 | 15.89 ± 1.29 | |
Age range | 5- 17.3 | |||
Duration Diabetes | ||||
Mean ± SD | 3.37 ± 2.6 yrs. | 2.35 ± 1.3yrs | 4.19 ± 3.17yrs | |
Range | 0.5 - 10.3 yrs. | 0.5 - 4.0yrs | 1.0 - 10.3 yrs. | |
Mean HbA1c (%) | 10.02 ± 2.5 | 9.07 ± 2.58 | 10.69 ± 2.39 | 0.214 |
Subjects who had hypo in school | ||||
Yes | 8 (44.4%) | 6 (75%) | 2 (20%) | 0.020* |
No | 10 (55.6%) | 2 (25%) | 8 (80%) | |
Subjects who had other Issues in School | 11 (61.1%) | 5 (62.5%) | 6 (60%) | |
Subjects on more than twice insulin shots/day | 2 (22.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (20%) | |
Insulin Delivery methods | ||||
Syringes | 15 ( 83.3) | |||
Pen | 3 (16.7) | |||
Insulin Pump | 0( 0.00) | |||
Level of Education of Participating parents | ||||
Nil | 0 (0.00) | |||
Primary | 3 (16.6) | |||
Secondary | 7 (38.9) | |||
Tertiary | 8 (44) |
*Indicates statistically significant.
Parents Response to Actions on School care? | <10yrs | ≥10 yrs. | Total (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Did you Inform School about Child’s DM? | |||
Yes | 8 | v | 14 (77.8) |
No | 0 | 4 | 4 (22.2) |
Did you give a written plan to school on the care of your child? | |||
Yes | 1 | 1 | 2 (11.1) |
No | 7 | 9 | 16 (88.9) |
Did you give written plan to treat hypoglycaemia in school? | |||
Yes | 3 | 0 | 3 (16.7) |
No | 5 | 10 | 15 (83.3) |
Does your child take Glucometers and other care materials to school? | |||
Yes | 0 | 2 | 2 (11.1) |
No | 8 | 8 | 16 (88.9) |
Do you make contact with school while child is in school? | |||
Daily | 3 | 0 | 3 (16.7) |
Rarely | 4 | 3 | 7 (38.9) |
Never | 1 | 7 | 8 (44.4) |
Do you manipulate insulin dose to prevent hypoglycaemia in school? | |||
Yes | 4 | 5 | 9 (50) |
No | 4 | 5 | 9 (50) |
Are you worried that your child will not get adequate care in school? | |||
Yes | 3 | 4 | 7 (38.9) |
No | 5 | 6 | 11 (61.1) |
with type 1 diabetes mellitus in schools in Nigeria. This report has taken into account the fact that unlike in most developed countries where legislations are available for the responsibility of the school in support of children with various chronic diseases such as diabetes, in most developing countries, these are not available and parents play an important part in ensuring adequate care while their children are in school.
In this report, we found a significant deficiency on the part of parents towards care of their children in school. This was demonstrated by the fact that more than 80% of parents did not give any plan for care of diabetes or hypoglycaemia and more than 80% of children did not take glucometers to school. The absence of written plan in management of hypoglycaemia in this study was much higher than what was found in a review of management of diabetes in Swedish schools where 40% of children did not also have written plans for management of hypoglycaemia [
Most developing countries have reported challenges with management of children living with Type 1DM and consistently reported poor outcome in these children and youths [
Diabetes care in schools vary greatly between different countries and in distribution of responsibility between parents and school and in regions without legislation, this makes comparison between different regions difficult. In this study, 77% of parents notified school of child’s condition, this is lower than 100% noted in a study on management of type 1 DM in schools in the UK. In this study, parents notified the school for all children below 10 years. The lower rate of school notification in the older children may be due to the fact that parents feel adolescents have adequate knowledge about diabetes self care and can be independent.
In this study, 56% of parents reported making contact with school while their children were in school. This is higher than 28% reported in a Swedish study and is similar to 50% reported in a Danish study. The rate of contact with school by parents may be dependent on perceived care and support available at school. In Sweden where there is established legislation for support, may account for the lower rate of contact. The fact that parents will have to continue care may enable them keep track of what is happening to their child but account for burnt out syndrome which is common in parents of children living with type 1 DM.
Hypoglycaemia is a common problem in children living with type 1 DM even at school. Studies have shown a relationship between parent fear of hypoglycaemia and its consequences including their belief about the child’s ability to handle hypoglycaemia [
Parent’s interest in care of their children in school could depend on the age of the child. In this study, we found that parents were more likely to communicate with school in different aspects of care more for younger children less than 10 years. In contrast however we found that parental worries of care in school were independent of the child’s age. There is generally a tendency for support in self care to reduce with age in children living with type 1 DM. In the Swedish study, support in school was highest during the lower grades and reduced in higher grades. In a US study, only 9% of high school student received support [
This study shows that care of children living with type1 DM in school in Port Harcourt, Nigeria is grossly nonexistent. Parents who represent an important link between the health team should be educated on what their role is in ensuring adequate support and care for their wards in school. There is also need for a national regulation on management support in schools for children living with diabetes mellitus to improve outcome.
I will like to thank all parents and children pair who responded to call to participate in this study.
Author declares no conflict of interest.
This article did not contain any study of human or animal experiments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Tamunopriye, J. (2018) The Management in a Developing Country of Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus at School: A Review of Attitude of Parents. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, 327-334. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2018.94028