Peer Telephone Counseling for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this case study was to determine the feasibility of peer-led telephone counseling for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus related to physical activity (PA) and to establish preliminary efficacy of peer-led telephone counseling for eliciting recommended changes in PA-related cognitions and behaviors for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A total of 8 adults (5 males and 3 females, aged 59.5 (6.5) years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus completed quantitative self-report measures of aerobic-based PA, resistance training (RT), along with metrics from social cognitive theory (SCT) before and after a 12-week intervention. Qualitative data from weekly peer-led telephone sessions were collected by a peer counselor and subsequently organized into themes and analyzed using a mixed-methods, collective case-study approach. RESULTS: PA behaviors remained relatively constant over the 12-week intervention. Self-efficacy for RT improved (z = -2.03; P = .04). From the peer counselor's perspective, identifiable inhibitors to PA, which included low self-efficacy and disease condition limitations, were successfully translated into enablers/motivators. Perceived health benefits were frequently reported by the peer counselor as motivators for the participants over the study period. Participants believed peer counseling by telephone influenced their decision to continue to participate in PA. CONCLUSION: Theory-based, peer-led telephone counseling shows some promise for increasing receptiveness to PA, but had little effect on improving behavior for most participants. Further studies will be necessary to determine the effectiveness and the sustainability of this approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".