Diabetes care and health status of First Nations individuals with type 2 diabetes in Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the state of diabetes care among Alberta First Nations individuals with diabetes living on reserves. DESIGN: Survey and screening for diabetes-related complications. SETTING: Forty-three Alberta First Nations communities. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 743 self-referred First Nations individuals with known diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical measurements (glycated hemoglobin A(1c) levels, body mass index, waist circumference, total cholesterol, blood pressure, and the presence of kidney complications or proteinuria, retinopathy, and foot abnormalities), self-reported health services utilization, clinical history, and knowledge of and satisfaction with diabetes services. RESULTS: Female participants tended to be more obese (P < .05) and to have abnormal waist circumferences more often than men (P < .05). Male participants, however, had a higher proportion of proteinuria (P < .05), hypertension (P < .05), limb complications (P < .05), and retinopathy (P < .05). Family physicians were the main diabetes care providers for most participants. Nearly half the participants felt they did not have care from a diabetes team. A total of 38% had never seen dietitians. Diabetes-related concerns were responsible for 24% of all hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Approximately 46% and 21% of participants had recommended hemoglobin A(1c) testing and foot examinations, respectively. Only 24% of participants with kidney complications were receiving treatment. A considerable proportion of participants had undiagnosed complications of diabetes: kidney damage or proteinuria (23%), high cholesterol (22%), foot complications (11%), hypertension (9%), and retinopathy (7%). CONCLUSION: Diabetes care is suboptimal in Alberta First Nations communities. Rural physicians caring for First Nations individuals on reserves should be involved, along with other members of diabetes health care teams, in strategies to improve diabetes care. Our results justify the need for community-based screening for diabetes control and complications in First Nation communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".