Development and pilot test of a peer-support based Cardiac-Diabetes Self-Management Program: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background People with cardiac disease and type 2 diabetes have higher hospital readmission rates (22%) compared to those without diabetes (6%). Self-management is an effective approach to achieve better health outcomes; however there is a lack of specifically designed programs for patients with these dual conditions. This project aims to extend the development and pilot test of a Cardiac-Diabetes Self-Management Program incorporating user-friendly technologies and the preparation of lay personnel to provide follow-up support. Methods/Design A randomised controlled trial will be used to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the Cardiac-Diabetes Self-Management Program incorporating DVD case studies and trained peers to provide follow-up support by telephone and text-messaging. A total of 30 cardiac patients with type 2 diabetes will be randomised, either to the usual care group, or to the intervention group. Participants in the intervention group will received the Cardiac-Diabetes Self-Management Program in addition to their usual care. The intervention consists of three face-to-face sessions as well as telephone and text-messaging follow up. The face-to-face sessions will be provided by a trained Research Nurse, commencing in the Coronary Care Unit, and continuing after discharge by trained peers. Peers will follow up patients for up to one month after discharge using text messages and telephone support. Data collection will be conducted at baseline (Time 1) and at one month (Time 2). The primary outcomes include self-efficacy, self-care behaviour and knowledge, measured by well established reliable tools. Discussion This paper presents the study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to pilot evaluates a Cardiac-Diabetes Self-Management program, and the feasibility of incorporating peers in the follow-ups. Results of this study will provide directions for using such mode in delivering a self-management program for patients with both cardiac condition and diabetes. Furthermore, it will provide valuable information of refinement of the intervention program. Trial Registration Number ACTRN12611000086965
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 | 0.052 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".