MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045086428 · doi:10.1111/dme.12475

Effectiveness of a group diabetes education programme in under‐served communities in South Africa: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

2014· article· en· W2045086428 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInternational Diabetes Federation
KeywordsMedicineAttendanceRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureType 2 diabetesWaistPhysical therapyWeight lossHealth educationDemographyPublic healthGerontologyPediatricsInternal medicineObesityNursingEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of group education, led by health promoters using a guiding style, for people with type 2 diabetes in public sector community health centres in Cape Town. METHODS: This was a pragmatic clustered randomized controlled trial with 17 randomly selected intervention and 17 control sites. A total of 860 patients with type 2 diabetes, regardless of therapy used, were recruited from the control sites and 710 were recruited from the intervention sites. The control sites offered usual care, while the intervention sites offered a total of four monthly sessions of group diabetes education led by a health promoter. Participants were measured at baseline and 12 months later. Primary outcomes were diabetes self-care activities, 5% weight loss and a 1% reduction in HbA(1c) levels. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, locus of control, mean blood pressure, mean weight loss, mean waist circumference, mean HbA1c and mean total cholesterol levels and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 422 (59.4%) participants in the intervention group did not attend any education sessions. No significant improvement was found in any of the primary or secondary outcomes, apart from a significant reduction in mean systolic (-4.65 mmHg, 95% CI 9.18 to -0.12; P = 0.04) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.30 mmHg, 95% CI -5.35 to -1.26; P = 0.002). Process evaluation suggested that there were problems with finding suitable space for group education in these under-resourced settings, with patient attendance and with full adoption of a guiding style by the health promoters. CONCLUSION: The reported effectiveness of group diabetes education offered by more highly trained professionals, in well-resourced settings, was not replicated in the present study, although the reduction in participants' mean blood pressure is likely to be of clinical significance.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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