Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers reported by patients receiving diabetes and hypertension primary health care in Barbados: a focus group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficiencies in the quality of diabetes and hypertension primary care and outcomes have been documented in Barbados. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices, and the barriers faced by people with diabetes and hypertension in Barbados that might contribute to these deficiencies. METHODS: Five structured focus groups were conducted for randomly selected people with diabetes and hypertension. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (5 diabetic, 5 hypertensive, and 11 with both diseases) with a mean age of 59 years attended 5 focus group sessions.Patient factors that affected care included the difficulty in maintaining behaviour change. Practitioner factors included not considering the "whole person" and patient expectations, and not showing enough respect for patients. Health care system factors revolved around the amount of time spent accessing care because of long waiting times in public sector clinics and pharmacies. Society related barriers included the high cost and limited availability of appropriate food, the availability of exercise facilities, stigma of disease and difficulty taking time off work.Attendees were not familiar with guidelines for diabetes and hypertension management, but welcomed a patient version detailing a place to record results, the frequency of tests, and blood pressure and blood glucose targets. Appropriate education from practitioners during consultations, while waiting in clinic, through support and education groups, and for the general public through the schools, mass media and billboards were recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers should take a more patient centred approach to the care of those with diabetes and hypertension. The care system should provide better service by reducing waiting times. Patient self-management could be encouraged by a patient version of care guidelines and greater educational efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".