Diabetes education: what do adolescents want?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To establish adolescents' beliefs regarding the need for structured diabetes education and their views on how such a programme should be organised and what topics need to be addressed. BACKGROUND: Structured diabetes education programmes have become common place in diabetes care in recent years. Despite the use of these programmes in adult patients, to date, there exists no tried or tested programme for adolescents. Prior to the development of programmes for this age group, there is a need to establish their views on programme content, delivery mechanisms and how best to introduce structured education in this population. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study. METHODS: Five focus group interviews were undertaken across three acute Hospital Trusts in Northern Ireland. A total of 21 adolescents between 13-19 years were interviewed. Data were analysed by means of a thematic content analysis framework. RESULTS: All participants expressed a need for a structured education programme specifically tailored to their needs. The complexity of existing diabetes regimens brought with it feelings of frustration and guilt for the majority of adolescents. Many felt isolated and alone. Dietary management and insulin adjustment were seen as very complex. CONCLUSION: Participants favoured a structured diabetes education programme that was short in duration, practical in nature, positive in outlook and relevant to daily life. Relevance to clinical practice. Programmes should address the specific needs of adolescents, be delivered in a practical manner and be realistic for everyday use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".