Managing Hypoglycemia in Diabetes May Be More Fear Management Than Glucose Management: A Practical Guide for Diabetes Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes management is complex and requires significant effort from the person with diabetes to achieve recommended self-management behaviours. Achieving guideline concordant self-management is made easier when the person with diabetes is committed to the behaviours. Ambivalence is the psychological state in which a person experiences inconsistent drives; both toward and away from the recommended behaviour. Ambivalence about achieving recommended control over blood glucose is expected in situations of hypoglycaemia, due to the associated dangers. In this paper we demonstrate that hypoglycaemia is a fear event and is likely to elicit strong drives to avoid future hypoglycaemia as a fear coping strategy. For many, this results in hyperglycaemia. If hyperglycaemia to avoid hypoglycaemia is a fear management strategy, then hypoglycaemia management should involve fear management. Few diabetes healthcare providers are trained, skilled and confident in fear management. The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence on the psychological consequences of hypoglycaemia and to outline fear management strategies that can be implemented by diabetes care providers. A step-by-step guide is provided to facilitate understanding of the process of the intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".