MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315316208 · doi:10.1177/2373379915625648

Promoting Self-Care at School for Students With Chronic Health Needs

2016· article· en· W2315316208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean Cousins, Christopher DeLuca

Bibliographic record

VenuePedagogy in Health Promotion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisInclusion (mineral)Health promotionHealth careNursingPsychological interventionPromotion (chess)PsychologyPublic healthMedicineMedical educationQualitative researchSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with chronic health needs who have the capacity for self-care have been shown to have higher academic performance and greater social inclusion. However, self-care is rarely practiced as a focal point of health services interventions outside of clinical settings. Furthermore, little is known about how self-care develops through family, health, and educational support networks as a whole and from the point of view of teachers. This study used in-depth, semistructured interviews and a demographic questionnaire to generate teachers’ perspectives on the promotion of self-care in elementary school children with diabetes, and to represent their interactions with key supporters, including health care professionals, members of children’s families, and providers of educational services. Participants were recruited based on having at least one student with diabetes who received or was receiving care through a health services program designed to facilitate self-care in the schoolchildren. The teachers were sequentially selected from a Public School District in a midsized city in New Brunswick (Canada; N = 4) and two Boards of Education in a midsized Ontario city ( N = 4). Through a thematic analysis, teachers’ perspectives on their promotion of self-care in schoolchildren with diabetes were represented through five main interconnected themes: (a) teachers’ conceptions of self-care, (b) learning about health supports, (c) communication for self-care, (d) building inclusion, and (e) a difficult but manageable endeavor. Study limitations and future research implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePedagogy in Health PromotionSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207