Determinants of Self-Care in Diabetic Patients Based on Health Belief Model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine self-care predictors in diabetic patients based on health belief model. MATERIALS & METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted on 110 diabetic patients referred to health service centers in Ardakan city, Yazd, Iran. The data was collected by a questionnaire including perceived benefits, barriers, severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, social support, self-care behaviors and demographic variables. RESULTS: Regularly medicine use (mean=6.48 times per week) and shoes checking (mean=1.17 times per week) were reported as the highest and the lowest self-care behaviors respectively. Health belief model constructs including perceived benefits, barriers, severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy and social support predicted 33.5% of the observed variance of self-care behaviors. Perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy had positive effect on self-care behavior; whereas perceived barrier's has negative effect. Self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility and barriers were most powerful predictor respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings approved the efficiency of health belief model in prediction of self-care behaviors among diabetic patients. The findings realized the health belief model structure; therefore, it can be used as a framework for designing and implementing educational interventions in diabetes control plans.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it