The role of patient, physician and systemic factors in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored the contextual dimensions and subsequent interactions that contribute to a lack of adherence in the application of guidelines for diabetes management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore family physicians' issues and perceptions regarding the barriers to and facilitators of the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Four focus groups composed of family physicians (n= 30) explored the participants' experiences in the management of patients with type 2 DM. A semi-structured interview guide began with questions on family physicians' experience of providing care and included specific probes to stimulate discussion about the various barriers to and facilitators of the management of type 2 DM in family practice. RESULTS: Participants clearly identified type 2 DM as a chronic disease most often managed by family physicians. The findings revealed distinct barriers and facilitators in managing patients with type 2 DM which fell into three domains: patient factors; physician factors; and systemic factors. There was a dynamic interplay among the three factors. The important role of education was common to each. CONCLUSIONS: The interactions of patient, physician and systemic factors have implications for the implementation of a diabetes management model. The care of patients with type 2 DM exemplifies the ongoing challenges of caring for patients with a chronic disease in family practice. The findings, while specific to the management of type 2 DM, have potential transferability to other chronic illnesses managed by family physicians.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".