The clarity, timing, and authority of the delivery of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes had important meaning for patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parry O, Peel E, Douglas M, et al . Patients in waiting: a qualitative study of type 2 diabetes patients’ perceptions of diagnosis. Fam Pract 2004;21:131–6.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How do patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes perceive their diagnosis? Constant comparative method with direction from a grounded theory approach. 16 general practices and 3 hospital clinics in the Lothian region of Scotland, UK. 40 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the previous 6 months. Almost all patients were white and treated by diet alone or diet plus metformin and/or gliclazide. Patients participated in semistructured interviews of about 1 hour, which included questions on how they came to be diagnosed with diabetes, how they felt when they found out they had diabetes, and their experiences with diabetes services. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Regular team meetings were held to identify recurrent themes, explore patients’ underlying reasoning, discuss deviant cases, and identify new research questions. First contact. Before diagnosis, more than half of patients … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFamily%2BPractice%26rft.stitle%253DFam%2BPract%26rft.aulast%253DParry%26rft.auinit1%253DO.%26rft.volume%253D21%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D131%26rft.epage%253D136%26rft.atitle%253DPatients%2Bin%2Bwaiting%253A%2Ba%2Bqualitative%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Btype%2B2%2Bdiabetes%2Bpatients%2527%2Bperceptions%2Bof%2Bdiagnosis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1093%252Ffampra%252Fcmh203%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15020378%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cmh203&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15020378&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F1%2F29.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220180200003&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".