Background: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) may differ from peers regarding sexual risk behaviors. Objectives: To explore sexual risk behaviors of adolescents with T1D in comparison with peers. Materials and methods: The subjects were 174 adolescents, 58 adolescents with T1D (mean ± SD age 16.3 ± 2.0 yrs, disease duration 6.7 ± 3.5 yrs and HbA1c:8.0 ± 1.3%) and 116 without (matched 1:2). Anonymous, self-reported questionnaires were used to evaluate sexual education and behaviors. Results: Fewer adolescents with T1D than those without had a sexual experience (74.1% vs. 87.4%, p = 0.033), with similar age of sexual debut. Among adolescents with T1D, ≥2 risky behaviors were observed less frequently than adolescents without T1D (8.62% vs. 23.27%, p = NS respectively) and in fewer girls than boys in both adolescents with T1D (0% vs. 18.5%, p = NS) and adolescents without T1D (11% vs. 44%, p = 0.022). Adolescents with T1D with ≥2 risky behaviors were older (p = 0.031), younger at first sexual intercourse (p = 0.031), with higher maternal education (p = 0.039). Early sexual debut was associated with higher maternal education (p = 0.014) and HbA1c (p = 0.049). Most adolescents without T1D with ≥2 risky behaviors were boys and older than peers. Conclusions: Adolescents with T1D and females were more cautious than adolescents without T1D regarding sex. The associations of increased risky behaviors with male gender, older age, younger age at sexual debut and higher maternal education in adolescents with T1D merit further investigation.

Objectives: Families play a pivotal role in the care of adolescents with chronic illnesses, such as type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study’s aim was to evaluate family functioning in families of adolescents with T1D and to assess its relationship with metabolic control. Methods: Fifty-eight adolescents and young adults diagnosed with T1D, aged 14–21 years, and 116 healthy adolescents (controls) matched for age, gender and socioeconomic status were included in this study. The participants’ mean age was 15.9 years (±1.6 years). The demographics and family functioning were reported by the participants. The McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) measured family functioning across six dimensions. Results: In problem-solving and behavioral involvement, T1D adolescents self-reported similar scores to healthy controls. On the contrary, in the domains of communication (p = 0.048), family roles (p = 0.045), affective responsiveness (p = 0.048), affective involvement (p = 0.043) and general functioning (p = 0.044), the T1D group scored lower than the controls, indicating better family functioning. Furthermore, within the T1D group, better metabolic control, assessed by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), was associated with a trend toward improved affective responsiveness, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.091). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of family functioning among adolescents with T1D and point toward distinct family processes that can be addressed in the context of routine care to enhance wellbeing and facilitate T1D management.