Lifestyle management for type 2 diabetes. Are family physicians ready and willing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine practices and perceptions of family physicians regarding lifestyle interventions to prevent and manage type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN: Confidential mailed survey. SETTING: Canadian family practices. PARTICIPANTS: Random, stratified sample of 1499 respondents to the 2001 National Family Physician Workforce Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' self-reported practice patterns and perceptions of lifestyle counseling for patients at risk for, and diagnosed with, T2D. RESULTS: Response rate was 53% (749/1410). Respondents frequently asked patients at risk for, or diagnosed with, T2D about physical activity and weight loss, but far fewer provided written advice, particularly about physical activity. Respondents thought counseling with such interventions as generic patient handouts was preferable to more intensive lifestyle management strategies, such as appointments to provide stage-matched counseling on physical activity. Most respondents thought family physicians should perform lifestyle interventions but realized they are confounded by such barriers as patients' lack of interest and limited referral resources. CONCLUSION: Family physicians keen to implement lifestyle interventions for T2D are hampered by barriers and use of ineffective strategies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".