Diabetes risk evaluation and microalbuminuria (DREAM) studies: ten years of participatory research with a First Nation’s home and community model for type 2 diabetes care in Northern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the DREAM studies and the role of participatory research using a Home and Community Care model in treating First Nations diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: Population survey, pilot and prospective randomized trial METHODS: Review documented history of these studies since inception. Collation of all data from the DREAM studies from 1998 to the present, including interviews with all providers and many of the participants. RESULTS: The DREAM studies were a participatory process providing a needs assessment and became the foundation for this First Nation's Home and Community Care team involvement in providing community-based chronic-disease management. The findings motivated the community to find a process that would lead to needed changes. This participatory research enabled a culturally tailored algorithm of evidence-based management of hypertension and disease management strategies for people with diabetes. These studies demonstrated that in this community the Home and Community Care team could work together with primary care physicians and specialists to prevent the complications of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The DREAM studies demonstrated in the first controlled trial that with participatory research a systems change is possible; a chronic-disease management model utilizing a trained multidisciplinary Home and Community Care team and informed patients can lead to lower blood pressure in a Canadian First Nations population with diabetes.
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".