MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104677815

Screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: family physician and patient perspectives.

2010· article· en· W2104677815 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather D. Clark, Alan Karovitch, Ian D. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesPrimary careDiabetes mellitusPregnancyType 2 diabetesFamily medicinePostpartum periodType 2 Diabetes MellitusObstetricsPediatricsGestationEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care provider (PCP) and patient perspectives on postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including reasons for not completing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) specifically, preferred provider for organizing screening, and value of reminder letters for facilitating screening. DESIGN: A follow-up survey, administered by fax or telephone, to PCPs and patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of postpartum postal reminders to enhance screening for T2DM in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING: The Ottawa Hospital, a university-affiliated tertiary centre in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 223 female patients with previously identified GDM and their respective PCPs were surveyed; 173 PCPs and 140 patients participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether or not the patient was screened for T2DM post partum, the test used for screening, the factors contributing to the patient not being screened, perspectives on the importance of screening post partum, and opinions about which care provider should be responsible for screening in the postpartum period. RESULTS: Response rates were 78% (173 of 223) for PCPs and 63% (140 of 223) for patients. Only 37% of the PCP responders had their patients complete OGTTs, while 85% of patient responders reported that they had completed OGTTs. The most common reason PCPs gave for not screening was no postpartum visit from the patient for any reason. Time pressures were the most common reason provided by patients for not being screened. More than 95% of patients and providers agreed that screening for T2DM was important. Patients and PCPs agreed that PCPs should be responsible for screening. Reminder letters were perceived as helpful by more than 85% of patients and PCPs. CONCLUSION: This follow-up survey demonstrates that PCPs and patients value the importance of screening for diabetes, identify the PCP as pivotal to screening, and appreciate a reminder strategy. There continue to be barriers that affect screening rates, despite the perceived importance of screening by PCPs and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207