MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116939645 · doi:10.1017/s146342360999017x

Are there disparities in diabetes care? A comparison of care received by US rural and non-rural adults with diabetes

2009· article· en· W2116939645 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusPsychological interventionHealth careGerontologyRural areaPopulationRural healthFamily medicineMultivariate analysisEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Are there differences in diabetes care between rural and non-rural US adults with diabetes? Background Rural Healthy People 2010 includes diabetes as a major health priority, suggesting a possible disparity between diabetes care in rural settings as compared to non-rural locales. Methods This cross-sectional study using population-based survey data sought to determine if there was a difference in the quality of diabetes care between rural and non-rural US adults (⩾18 years). A diabetes care index was computed from five separate dichotomous care-related variables (HbA1c checked, lipids checked, dilated eye exam, feet checked by health care provider, and diabetes education), with adequate care defined as receiving at least four of these interventions. Multivariate methods were used to detect differences in diabetes care received by individuals living in rural compared to non-rural settings. Results Multivariate regression analysis revealed that US adults with diabetes living in rural communities were more likely to receive inadequate care than non-rural residents (OR = 1.205; 95% CI 1.201, 1.209). Rural residents were more likely to receive inadequate diabetes care if they were: <40 years of age, male, Caucasian, not a high school graduate, not partnered, without health insurance, inactive or without an identified health care provider. Those deferring medical care because of cost, or who did not have an annual routine physical or had fewer than two diabetes related office visits annually were also at greater risk for suboptimal care. Routine physical checkups and deferring medical care because of cost had a greater impact on diabetes care for rural adults compared to non-rural adults. Conclusion The results of this study indicated that rural residents were less likely to receive adequate diabetes care compared to their non-rural counterparts. The findings suggest that efforts to identify and to address this disparity would likely improve the outcomes for diabetic individuals living in rural communities.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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