Evaluation of a peer‐led self‐management education programme <scp>PEP</scp> Talk: Diabetes, Healthy Feet and You
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PEP (Peer Education Programme) Talk: Diabetes, Healthy Feet and You is a peer-led self-management programme developed to address the problems of growing prevalence of diabetes and its complications, and limited health care dollars. An evaluation of the programme, how it might be situated within a public health perspective and potential bridges for its implementation in communities throughout Canada and worldwide, are presented. The programme consisted of workshops that were conducted by volunteer peer leaders and health care professionals in 12 communities in 10 Canadian provinces; the volunteers were supported through monthly mentoring teleconferences, on-line tips and discussion board conversations. A web portal was developed to be used by the team, volunteers and community participants. Workshop curriculum was developed based on diabetes footcare and self-management best practise guidelines. Community participants answered pre-and post-workshop statements that indicated that learning occurred, as indicated by an increase in the number of statements answered correctly. Participants' feedback about the workshops was positive. In telephone follow-up interviews, 97% of respondents reported having changed their foot self-management behaviours. The portal was commonly used according to website visits, but not as much as expected for registration of community participants. It is recommended that this programme be made widely available and tailored to the specific needs of the communities and that further evaluation be conducted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".