Participants’ Perceptions of a Group Based Program Incorporating Hands-On Meal Preparation and Pedometer-Based Self-Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition education (portion sizes, balanced meals) is a cornerstone of diabetes management; however, moving from information to behavior change is challenging. Through a single arm intervention study, we recently demonstrated that combining education with group-based meal preparation training has measureable effects on weight, eating behaviour, and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. In the present study, we conducted an in-depth examination of participants' perceptions of this strategy, through focus group discussion, to delineate effective elements of the strategy from participants' perspectives. METHODS: Participants who had completed the nutrition education/meal preparation training program were invited to attend one of four focus group discussions. These were led by experienced facilitators and guided by questions addressing experiences during the intervention and their perceived impact. Audiotapes were transcribed and qualitative content analysis of transcripts was performed. We report herein themes that achieved saturation across the four discussions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (80.6%, 29/36) attended a focus group discussion. The program elements perceived as effective by participants included the hands-on interactive learning approach to meal preparation, the grocery store tour, pedometer-based self-monitoring, experiencing the link between food consumption/physical activity and glucose changes during the program, and peer support. Discussants reported changes in eating and walking behaviour, greater confidence in ability to self-manage diabetes, reductions in glucose levels and/or need for glucose-lowering medications, and, in some cases, weight loss. Family members and friends were facilitators for some and barriers for others in terms of achieving health behavior changes. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with type 2 diabetes, a group based program that included hands-on meal preparation and pedometer-based self-monitoring was perceived as effective in conveying information, developing skills, building confidence, and changing health behaviors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".