Piloting an Integrated, Interprofessional Programme for People Living with Type II Diabetes: Outcomes and Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports quantitative and descriptive qualitative findings from a mixed-methods study exploring and evaluating the outcomes and experiences of clients, staff and students piloting an integrated interprofessional programme for community members with type II diabetes. The one-day per week, eight-week programme included interprofessional appointments, group education sessions and case conferences led by students from exercise and nutrition, health promotion, nursing, occupational therapy, oral health, physiotherapy, podiatry and counselling psychology. Participants shared their experiences in individual interviews or focus groups. Client outcomes were evaluated using basic clinical indicators and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) that assesses client goal satisfaction and performance. While only small expected changes to clinical indicators were noted, there were moderate increases in mean COPM scores for performance and satisfaction. Descriptive qualitative analysis identified enjoyment from working as a team, better client outcomes and new knowledge or learning as the most frequent experiences. Findings suggested increased self-management empowerment for clients and their support people, while students and staff experienced both learning from, appreciating and educating each other about their own and others’ roles, and better collaboration. The success of the pilot programme has led to its continuation; however, timing and resourcing challenges noted by participants could threaten sustainability and accommodation of more clients and students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".