Absence of Disparities in the Quality of Primary Diabetes Care for South Asians and Chinese in an Urban Canadian Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether quality of diabetes care is equitable for South Asian and Chinese patients in an urban Canadian setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Process and intermediate measures of quality of care were compared between 246 South Asians, 170 Chinese, and 431 patients from the general population with type 2 diabetes selected from 45 family physicians' practices. RESULTS: A total of 61% of Chinese achieved A1C ≤7.0% versus 45% of South Asians and 49% of the general population (P < 0.05). They were also more likely to achieve LDL cholesterol ≤2.0 mmol/L, while South Asians were more likely to achieve blood pressure ≤130/80. There was only one significant process of care deficiency: fewer foot examinations among South Asians (34 vs. 49% for the general population, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of diabetes care in a Canadian urban setting was equitable, with ethnic minorities somewhat more likely to achieve recommended targets than the general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".