Examining a Remote Group-Based Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management Education Program in the COVID-19 Era Using the ORBIT Model: Small 6-Week Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background To date, most group-based diabetes self-management education (DSME) programs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) have been delivered in person. The rapid transition to remote care at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic presented opportunities to test, evaluate, and iterate a new remote DSME program. Objective We aim to refine the delivery and evaluation of a multicomponent remote DSME program for adults living with T2D by examining several feasibility outcomes. Methods We recruited a convenience sample of patients from a London, Canada, outpatient diabetes clinic (serving high-risk, low-income adults) to participate in a 6-week, single cohort feasibility study from November 2020 to March 2021. This small ORBIT phase 1b feasibility study represents the first in a planned series guided by the ORBIT model for developing behavioral interventions for chronic diseases (phase 1: design; phase 2: preliminary testing; phase 3: efficacy; and phase 4: effectiveness). The feasibility of delivering and evaluating a remote DSME program, including (1) live video education classes, (2) individualized physical activity (PA) prescription and counseling, and (3) intermittently scanned continuous glucose and wearable PA monitoring, was assessed. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, program adherence, and acceptability (ie, technology issues and exit survey feedback). PA was assessed with Fitbit Inspire 2 (Fitbit Inc) and estimated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) using the FreeStyle Libre (Abbot). Given the small study sample, group- and individual-level data are reported descriptively. Results A total of 10 adults living with T2D were recruited (female 60%; age 49.9, SD 14.3 years; estimated HbA1c 6.2%, SD 0.5%). Recruitment and retention rates were 29% and 80%, respectively. Participants attended 83% (25/30) and 93% (37/40) of education classes and PA counseling phone calls, respectively. There were 3.2 (SD 2.6) technology issues reported per person, most of which were related to study data transfer. Exit survey responses suggest most participants (8/9, 89%) were “satisfied” with the program. Recognizing the small sample size and the fact that no inferential statistics were conducted, the mean (SD) for the weekly daily step count and estimated HbA1c are provided for illustrative purposes. Participants accumulated 7103 (SD 2900) and 7515 (SD 3169) steps per day at baseline and week 6, respectively. The estimated HbA1c was 6.2% (SD 0.5%) and 6.2% (SD 0.6%) at baseline and week 6, respectively. Conclusions This ORBIT phase 1b study served to refine the delivery (eg, automatic study data upload process recommended to reduce participant burden) and evaluation (eg, purposeful sampling of participants with baseline HbA1c >8% recommended to address selection bias) of a remote DSME program. Preliminary proof-of-concept testing (ORBIT phase 2) incorporating some of these learnings is now warranted. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04498819; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04498819
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».