Research Summary
Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™

Education Model Improves Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetes

Last updated July 12, 2026

Key finding

HbA1c showed a statistically significant reduction, decreasing from 7.70 ± 1.10% to 7.45 ± 0.91% following the intervention (p = 0.003).

Multidisciplinary hybrid education integrated with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Quick read

Study at a glance

The essential study design details in one scan.

EvidenceScore™

Moderate

Study type

RCTs

Follow-up

Medium-Term (3–12 mo)

Risk of bias

Some Concerns

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Plain-language summary

What this paper says

A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.

Study focus

Multidisciplinary hybrid education integrated with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Clinical relevance

This study evaluated Multidisciplinary hybrid education integrated with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Keep in mind

Limitations were not clearly described in the extracted text.

Published in

Journal Reference

Publication details and source links for this paper.

Carmen AR, Ana P, Ana C, et al. A Multidisciplinary Hybrid Education Model Integrated with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Healthcare. 2026;14(2):198. doi:10.3390/healthcare14020198

Evidence network

How this study fits

Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.

Evidence Context

This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and Change in Clarke score, HbA1c, Mean glucose levels measured during the intervention, and 3 more.

Primary intervention

Continuous glucose monitoring

Primary outcomes

  • Change in Clarke score
  • HbA1c
  • Mean glucose levels measured during the intervention

Evidence relationships

Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.

6
Evidence pairs
6
Relationships
3
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence

Editorial context

Why this study matters

See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.

Evidence network role

This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.

Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 72

3

Related topics

6

Evidence pairs

503

Related studies

High relevance in at least one topic

Why it is useful

  • Contributes to 6 evidence relationships
  • Includes primary outcome data
  • Linked to 3 direct semantic evidence topics

Topic contributions

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Add related evidence to your Evidence Tracker

Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.

Primary evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range

Related evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and Quality of Life Outcomes

Save evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c

Save evidence

Core evidence

Study findings

The primary outcomes reported in this study.

Change in Clarke score

Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in Clarke score

Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in Clarke score

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
100
Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

HbA1c

Continuous glucose monitoring → HbA1c

Continuous glucose monitoring → HbA1c

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
83
Strong
ImpactScore™
93
Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™
86
consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 7 studies
Add to Evidence Tracker

Mean glucose levels measured during the intervention

Continuous glucose monitoring → Mean glucose levels measured during the intervention

Continuous glucose monitoring → Mean glucose levels measured during the intervention

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
50
Neutral
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

Quality of life

Continuous glucose monitoring → Quality of life

Continuous glucose monitoring → Quality of life

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
50
Neutral
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

Time in range

Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range

Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
83
Strong
ImpactScore™
83
Positive
ConsistencyScore™
83
consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 6 studies
Add to Evidence Tracker

Treatment satisfaction

Continuous glucose monitoring → Treatment satisfaction

Continuous glucose monitoring → Treatment satisfaction

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
100
Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Connected Evidence

Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.

Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.

This study contributes to evidence on Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range, Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c.

Related evidence relationships

Explore in Evidence Explorer

This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.

Questions answered by this study

Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve cgm time in range?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Time in range

    EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 83.4 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 17 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
17 supporting studiesUpdated: Jul 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve quality of life outcomes?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Quality of Life Outcomes.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Quality of life

    EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 5 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
5 supporting studiesUpdated: Jul 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve HbA1c?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems appears to improve HbA1c.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    HbA1c

    EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 83.3 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 13 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
13 supporting studiesUpdated: Jul 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve treatment experience?

Moderate Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems appears to improve Treatment Experience.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Treatment satisfaction

    EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a small number of supporting studies and should be interpreted cautiously.

Limitations

  • Only a small number of supporting studies are available.
  • Population details are unavailable.
2 supporting studiesUpdated: Jul 2026
Learn how Evidence Intelligence™ works

Next steps

Continue your research

Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.

No ads. No tracking.

Focused on evidence, not advertising.

Secure & private

Your data is always protected.

Always up to date

New studies added every day.