Do Illness Perceptions Predict the Attendance Rate at Diabetic Outpatient Clinic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of non-attendance and to investigate the influence of illness perceptions on attendance at diabetic outpatient clinics. Research method and design: This is a descriptive study of 442 participants who were enrolled in a Diabetic Outpatient Clinic at Lerdsin Hospital, Thailand. Illness perceptions were derived from a Thai version of the IPQ-R questionnaire consisting of the same 3 sections as the original Illness perception- Revised with the distinction that it had 68 items. Test for validity was performed and the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient value was 0.87. Data were analysed by using independent t-tests. Binary logistic regression was used in order to assess the impact of illness perception scores on attendance among diabetic patients at the Outpatient Clinic. RESULTS: The results of the study were as follows: Demographic data showed that all respondents were of Thai ethnic origin and two-thirds of the respondents were women. The average age was 60 years. The majority of the participants had completed primary school (7-12 years old), was married and were Buddhist. The IPQ-R revealed the following findings: The illness perceptions at baseline and 6 months later showed that it illness perception had no effect on the participants' illness perception and attendance rate at the diabetic outpatient clinic. Participants who hold negative illness perceptions were more likely to attend diabetes clinics than those participants who had positive illness perceptions. A conceivable explanation for the non-significant findings in the study is the finding that during 6 month period there were some factors that have contributed to the failure of the participants to attend to their appointments. This is beyond the scope of the socio-demographic and illness perception factors. CONCLUSION: Thus, a plausible explanation for the non-significant findings in the study is that during 6 month period there were some factors that may have contributed to the appointment keeping among these patients beyond the scope of socio-demographic and illness perception factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".