<i>Gender and Nutrition Management</i> in Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The literature suggests that adherence to dietary recommendations may differ between women and men with type 2 diabetes due to family obligations and spousal support. METHODS: To assess division of household labour between spouses, retrospective chart review of 561 individuals who attended the Diabetes Education Centre at the Toronto Western Hospital was performed. Qualitative interviews were also performed with 12 married clients (six female and six male) and seven spouses of clients (three female, four male) to understand how the sharing of household labour influences adherence to nutrition guidelines in type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Results indicate a significant gender difference in responsibility for meal preparation (chi2(3)=140.64, p<.001) and grocery shopping (chi2(3)=88.24, p<0.001), with women more often engaging in these household activities than men. Male clients are more likely to be actively supported by their wives in the form of meal preparation and verbal encouragement, while female clients are only passively supported by their husbands. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that diabetes educators should recognize gender differences in household labour and support when counselling their clients to ensure that both men and women have the help they need to successfully manage their 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".