907 – Barriers To Self Care, Illness Perceptions And Their Relationship With Self Care In Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease that requires long-term medical care and lifestyle change. Many patients find it challenging to implement required behaviour changes and consequently, do not achieve glycaemic control. It is essential to research social cognitive factors that impact self care in T2DM. Aims To study the impact of barriers and illness perceptions on self care in T2DM Objectives To explore barriers to self care and illness perception and examine their relationship with self care, metabolic control and quality of life in T2DM. Methods A cross-sectional design was employed. The sample consisted of 60 patients with type 2 DM, meeting specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruited from the out-patient services of a hospital at Bangalore. The Barriers of self care questionnaire (Glasgow, 1994), The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (Morris et. al, 2002), The Summary of Diabetes Self Care Activities (Toobert & Glasgow, 1994) and The Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire Brief Clinical Inventory (Burroughs, Desikan, Waterman, Gilin & McGill, 2004) were administered. Metabolic control was assessed using glycosylated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c). Results Findings revealed that barriers to self care, negative perceptions of consequences of the illness and negative emotional representations were associated with poorer self care. Adherence was associated with better metabolic control and quality of life. Conclusions Barriers to self care and maladaptive illness representations pose a challenge in achieving self-care goals. Understanding barriers is the first step in facilitating practitioners to identify their role in enabling patients to overcome them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".