A total of 12 records covering eight separate studies were retrieved [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Data were collected in a limited number of countries, namely the USA (n = 8 articles), Italy (n = 2 articles), France and Israel (n = 1 article each) and had been published between 2015 and 2023 inclusive. Across the studies, varying types of videoconferencing technology were utilized: Vidyo™ (n = 2 studies), Tidepool™ (n = 1 study), Skype™ and a free Internet-based tele-conferencing platform (each n = 1 study); n = 7 studies did not provide related detail.

A total of ten records were retrieved [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Data were collected in the USA (n = 7 articles), Italy, France and Israel (n = 1 article each) and published between 2015 and 2023 inclusive. Across the studies, varying types of videoconferencing technology were utilized: Vidyo™, Tidepool™, Skype™ and a free Internet-based tele-conferencing platform (each n = 1 study); n = 6 studies did not provide related detail.

Six of the ten records focused on the effectiveness of videoconferencing as part of routine care [25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34], and collectively demonstrated mixed benefits to glycaemic control. In the study by Reid et al. [32], patients in the Colorado YAT1D  (CoYoT1) clinic experienced a 0.14% decrease in HbA1c from baseline, compared to a 0.04% decrease exhibited in the control group (p = 0.76). Elsewhere, however, Harris et al. [28], who hypothesized that behavioural family systems therapy-diabetes would significantly improve regimen adherence and glycaemic control in youth with poorly controlled T1D, reported no between-group differences between clinic and Skype™ care in treatment effects for adherence and glycaemic control (p = 0.77). When groups were collapsed to examine the overall effects of behavioural family systems therapy-diabetes on glycaemic control, results identified that statistically significant improvements in glycaemic control occurred from before to after the intervention; improvements were maintained at 3-month follow-up (no p value). Contrary to this, Bisno et al. [25], who aimed to analyse the impact of virtual group appointments on self-reported health-related outcomes, reported that HbA1c had increased over the study period in both CoYoT1 clinic and telehealth only participants, and that these changes did not significantly differ between study groups (p = 0.60).

Other included studies did not detail both pre- and post-intervention findings [26, 31, 34]. For example, Raymond et al. [31], who investigated the feasibility and acceptability of the CoYoT1 clinic, reported a mean ± SD HbA1c of 8.7 ± 1.6% (71.6 mmol/mol) but did not detail the effect of the intervention on glycaemic control. Wan et al. [34], who aimed to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of the CoYoT1 model versus usual care, reported HbA1c values at 9 months of CoYoT1: 8.4% ± 1.5 (median [IQ range] 8.1% (5.8%, 11.4%)); and control: 8.1% ± 1.0 (7.8% (6.9%, 10.3%)) (p = 0.63). Similarly, Duke et al. [26], who examined whether behavioural family systems therapy-diabetes delivered via telehealth resulted in improvements in other relevant areas of functioning (miscarried helping, family conflict, and acceptance of illness) for youth with T1D and their families, only HbA1c values pre intervention were reported: clinic 11.0 ± 1.7%, Skype™ 11.1 ± 1.7% and combined 11.1 ± 1.7%.

Four records focused on the effectiveness of videoconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic [27, 29, 30, 33, 35], and collectively demonstrated improvements to glycaemic control. Garcia et al. [27] (and corrigendum [35]) evaluated diabetes health-related outcomes associated with greater telehealth usage compared to greater in-person care in the CoYoT1 care model. They reported that young adults in both the intervention and control groups had a non-significant improvement in HbA1c (> 50% visits via telehealth: baseline HbA1c = 9.0 ± 2.3%; study end HbA1c = 8.5 ± 1.6%; p = 0.69 versus > 50% visits in-person: baseline HbA1c = 9.3 ± 2.2%; study end HbA1c = 8.4 ± 2.2%; p = 0.46). Elsewhere, Salabelle et al. [33] measured changes in glucose control through the first French lockdown for COVID-19, focusing on the role of telemedicine. At baseline (the month before lockdown), the mean percentage of time in range was 41.0% ± 15.8; this significantly increased to 41%, 46%, 47%, and 47% for the four consecutive months of observation (p < 0.001). At baseline, the mean glucose management indicator, time below range (< 70 mg/dL), and percentage of sensor usage were 8.2% ± 1.1, 5.2% ± 4.5, and 57.8% ± 28.2, respectively. During follow-up, the mean glucose management indicator significantly decreased and was 8.2%, 7.8%, 7.7%, and 7.7% (p < 0.001) respectively. The mean percentage of time below range slightly increased and was 5.2%, 5%, 5.6%, and 5.5% respectively, and the mean sensor usage significantly increased and was 58%, 66%, 67%, and 68% (p < 0.001). Glucose coefficient of variation and time above range (> 250 mg/dL) both decreased, from 43 (before lockdown) to 41 (after lockdown), and 53.8% to 48%, respectively. Further, in a study by Lazzeroni et al. [29], which aimed to compare glycaemic control between the period pre-COVID-19 lockdown and the stay-at-home period, comparison of pre- and post-lockdown data showed that glycaemic control significantly improved (mean ± SD HbA1c pre lockdown 64.4 ± 15.6 mmol/mol versus 60.7 ± 11.5 mmol/mol post lockdown, p = 0.002). Finally, in a study by Rachmiel [30], which aimed to determine the feasibility and impact of telehealth visits on the time in range of paediatric individuals with T1D, the time in range was significantly higher for the 2-week period after the telehealth visit than for the 2-week period prior to the visit (62.9 ± 16.0 mmol/mol versus 59.0 ± 17.2 mmol//mol (p < 0.001)); the improvement in relative time in range was 5.7 ± 26.1%.

No data were available relating to the impact of videoconferencing use on blood pressure and lipid control in YAT1D.

A total of four records were retrieved [23, 24, 31, 32]. Data were collected in the USA (n = 3 articles) and Italy (n = 1 article) and published between 2016 and 2022 inclusive. Across the studies, varying types of videoconferencing technology were utilized: Vidyo™ (n = 2 articles) and two studies did not provide this information.

Collectively, data indicated that young adults were satisfied with the use of videoconferencing technology. In a study by Raymond et al. [31], patients had indicated high levels of satisfaction with the CoYoT1 clinic overall, with a mean ± SD total satisfaction score of 51.7 ± 5.6 (maximum score = 60); the technology satisfaction subscale score was 39.5 ± 3.9 (maximum score = 45), and the group satisfaction subscale score was 12.2 ± 2.3 (maximum score = 15). Similarly, Reid et al. [32] reported that, compared with patients in the control group, patients in the CoYoT1 group reported higher appointment satisfaction after 6 months of participation in the study (4.2 ± 0.50 versus 3.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.03).

These findings were also echoed elsewhere. In a study by Bassi et al. [24], which was undertaken to evaluate the satisfaction of the use of telemedicine and telenursing in children and YAT1D and their families, 92.4% of the population were very satisfied with the quality of the service provided. Satisfaction was much higher in those who lived outside of the province of Genoa (p = 0.02) and in those on continuous subcutaneous insulin (p = 0.04). Similarly, Albanese-O’Neill [23], who looked at the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a healthcare program as measured by attendance and webpage views, satisfaction, and pre- and postintervention psychosocial outcomes, respectively, reported mean ± SD participant satisfaction scores of 62.2 ± 2.6 out of a possible 65 points.