MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017928172 · doi:10.7326/m13-3012

Comparison of Community Health Worker–Led Diabetes Medication Decision-Making Support for Low-Income Latino and African American Adults With Diabetes Using E-Health Tools Versus Print Materials

2014· article· en· W2017928172 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Heisler, HwaJung Choi, Gloria Palmisano, Rebecca Mase, Caroline R. Richardson, Angela Fagerlin, Víctor M. Montori, Michael S. Spencer, Laurence C. An

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicineHelpfulnessFamily medicineDiabetes mellitusCommunity healthCommunity health centerRandomized controlled trialHealth carePopulationGerontologyDistressPublic healthNursingEnvironmental healthClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care centers serving low-income communities have scarce resources to support medication decision making among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between community health worker use of a tailored, interactive, Web-based, tablet computer-delivered tool (iDecide) and use of print educational materials. DESIGN: Randomized, 2-group trial conducted from 2011 to 2013 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01427660). SETTING: Community health center in Detroit, Michigan, serving a Latino and African American low-income population. PARTICIPANTS: 188 adults with a hemoglobin A1c value greater than 7.5% (55%) or those who reported questions, concerns, or difficulty taking diabetes medications. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 1- to 2-hour session with a community health worker who used iDecide or printed educational materials and 2 follow-up calls. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were changes in knowledge about antihyperglycemic medications, patient-reported medication decisional conflict, and satisfaction with antihyperglycemic medication information. Also examined were changes in diabetes distress, self-efficacy, medication adherence, and hemoglobin A1c values. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of participants completed 3-month follow-up. Both groups improved across most measures. iDecide participants reported greater improvements in satisfaction with medication information (helpfulness, P = 0.007; clarity, P = 0.03) and in diabetes distress compared with the print materials group (P < 0.001). The other outcomes did not differ between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The study was conducted at 1 health center during a short period. The community health workers were experienced in behavioral counseling, thereby possibly mitigating the need for additional support tools. CONCLUSION: Most outcomes were similarly improved among participants receiving both types of decision-making support for diabetes medication. Longer-term evaluations are necessary to determine whether the greater improvements in satisfaction with medication information and diabetes distress achieved in the iDecide group at 3 months translate into better longer-term diabetes outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207