Experiences of Persons with Type II Diabetes Receiving Health Coaching: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this exploratory qualitative study was to examine the experience of persons living with type II diabetes who participated in a health coaching intervention. METHODS: The researchers used a qualitative phenomenological hermeneutic research design to explore the experiences of people undergoing health coaching for self-management of their diabetes. RESULTS: Qualitative data analysis resulted in three themes that best described participants' experience of health coaching for diabetes: (1) "the driving force," which described how health coaches helped clients to find powerful motivators for change; (2) "I'm not a child," which described how people wanted to be treated by the health coaches; and (3) "meeting the inner coach," which described how health coaches helped clients develop their own inner wisdom. DISCUSSION: The participants' descriptions of coaching challenge a more traditional paradigm of expert-driven and information-laden diabetes education practices. The findings suggest that the process of health coaching may help persons with diabetes become confident self-managers of their diabetes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it