Supporting participation in physical education at school in youth with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not clear how best to support youth with type 1 diabetes to participate in physical education (PE) at school. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of facilitators and barriers to PE in youth with type 1 diabetes and to determine how schools can help these individuals to be physically active. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with youth with type 1 diabetes aged 7–9 ( n = 8) and 12–14 ( n = 8) years with type 1 diabetes, their parents ( n = 16), diabetes professionals ( n = 9) and schoolteachers ( n = 37). Data were thematically analysed. Four main themes were identified relating to support needs of youth with diabetes in school in general and specifically in PE lessons: (1) differences between primary and secondary schools; (2) areas requiring address in all schools; (3) what teachers can do to help accommodate youth with type 1 diabetes; and (4) what schools can do to help accommodate youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes support varied across schools. Primary schools in particular could improve communication between schools and primary specialist PE teachers regarding youth with type 1 diabetes to aid participation in PE. Diabetes knowledge was limited among all teachers. Participants felt that diabetes could be used as an excuse to sit out of PE and that teachers’ fears could facilitate this. Improved and consistent diabetes management training and guidance on the responsibilities of teachers is necessary. Better communication between schools, teachers, parents, youth with type 1 diabetes and diabetes professionals is also required. The findings have helped produce suggestions for practice and research on how to improve support for youth with type 1 diabetes in schools in general and specifically in PE lessons.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".