Client perceptions of group education in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in South Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive chronic disease that requires significant self-surveillance and adherence to the treatment protocols for successful management and future health. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that diabetes education is beneficial for patient outcomes. However, there is some debate about how best to deliver diabetes education, whether individually or in groups. Although several studies have investigated the role of group education in improving the management of T2DM, few studies have examined this issue from the client's perspective. It is here that this study makes a contribution to understanding diabetes management. Drawing on systematic observation of group education sessions provided by diabetic resource nurses and in-depth interviews with clients, this paper describes the experiences, perspectives and significance of these sessions to clients. Our results suggest that group education sessions were seen as valuable to the clients for: the opportunity they provided to meet others living with diabetes; to improve motivation for managing the disease; and to enhance knowledge of diabetes, its management and long-term implications. In short, this study demonstrates that the clients value group education sessions for the social contact, increasing knowledge about the disease for self-management and support they provide; factors recognised as important to maintaining health. In addition, group education sessions appear to be a cost-effective method for diabetes self-management that funders need to consider.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".