Hannon, Tamara S.Yazel-Smith, Lisa G.Hatton, Amy S.Stanton, Jennifer L.Moser, Elizabeth A. S.Li, XiaochunCarroll, Aaron E.2019-03-282019-03-282018-06Hannon, T. S., Yazel‐Smith, L. G., Hatton, A. S., Stanton, J. L., Moser, E. A. S., Li, X., & Carroll, A. E. (2018). Advancing diabetes management in adolescents: Comparative effectiveness of mobile self-monitoring blood glucose technology and family-centered goal setting. Pediatric Diabetes, 19(4), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12648https://hdl.handle.net/1805/18703Background As adolescents gain autonomy, it remains important for parents to be involved with diabetes management to avoid deterioration in glycemic control. Technologies for self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) allow for remote monitoring in real‐time by parents. This research compared 3 strategies for improving SMBG and diabetes self‐care in the short‐term. These strategies were: (1) health information technology (HIT)‐enhanced blood glucose meter that shared blood glucose data among patients, their parent, and care providers, and allowed for text messaging; (2) family‐centered goal setting; and (3) a combination of (1) and (2). Methods One hundred twenty‐eight participants enrolled; 97 adolescent‐parent pairs attended clinic at 3‐month intervals during the 6‐month intervention. Differences between treatment groups were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVAs) for continuous variables and χ2 tests for frequencies. Within patient changes were evaluated using paired t tests. Results Participants in the HIT‐enhanced SMBG group had no change in mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants assigned to family‐centered goal setting had a non‐significant decrease in HbA1c of −0.3% (P = .26) from baseline to 6 months. Participants in the combined approach had a significant decrease in HbA1c of −0.6% (P = .02) from baseline to 3 months, but the decrease of −0.4% at 6 months was non‐significant (P = .51). The change in HbA1c from baseline to 3 months was greater for the combined approach than for the HIT‐enhanced SMBG (P = .05) or family‐centered goal setting (P = .01). Conclusions Our data suggest that utilizing the family‐centered goal setting strategy when implementing HIT‐enhanced diabetes technology deserves further study.enPublisher Policyadherenceblood glucose self‐monitoringpatient‐centered careArticle