The impact of diabetes education on blood glucose self‐monitoring among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether attending diabetes education is associated with blood glucose self-monitoring among unselected older adults in routine clinical care. METHOD: A cross-sectional population-based study was carried out on 15,190 people with diabetes aged 65-79 years. Subjects were identified using a registry of doctor-diagnosed diabetes derived from administrative data, and attendance at diabetes education centres (DECs) was determined from a separate registry of DEC utilization for 2006. Outcomes were derived using administrative data. The primary outcome was prescriptions filled for glucose self-monitoring supplies. The secondary outcomes were prescriptions for antihypertensive drugs, prescriptions for lipid-lowering drugs and eye examinations. RESULTS: DEC attendance was associated with glucose self-monitoring, after adjusting for baseline differences between attendees and non-attendees (adjusted odds ratio 6.45, 95% confidence interval 5.61 to 7.42). All of the secondary outcomes were also independently associated with DEC attendance. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that diabetes education is associated with self-management behaviour in real-world clinical care. These findings support the effectiveness of self-management education programmes to increase self-care behaviours.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".