Home-based diabetes self-management coaching delivered by paraprofessionals: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated paraprofessional-led diabetes self-management coaching (DSMC) among 94 clients with type 2 diabetes recruited from a Community Care Access Centre in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were randomized to standard care or standard care plus coaching. Measures included the Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale (DSES), Insulin Management Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale (IMDSES), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Both groups showed improvement in DSES (6.6 + 1.5 vs. 7.2 + 1.5, p < .001) and IMDSES (113.5 + 20.6 vs. 125.7 + 22.3, p < .001); there were no between-groups differences. There were no between-groups differences in anxiety (p > .05 for all) or depression scores (p > .05 for all), or anxiety (p > .05 for all) or depression (p > .05 for all) categories at baseline, postintervention, or follow-up. While all subjects demonstrated significant improvements in self-efficacy measures, there is no evidence to support paraprofessional-led DSMC as an intervention which conveys additional benefits over standard care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".