How’s Your Sugar? Evaluation of a Website for Aboriginal People With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter referred to as "Aboriginal people") have the longest continuing culture in the world, living sustainably for at least 65,000 years on the Australian continent. In relatively recent times, colonization processes have resulted in Aboriginal people experiencing unacceptable health inequalities compared with other Australians. One disease introduced due to colonization is diabetes, the second leading cause of death for Aboriginal peoples. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the construction and utilization of the website "How's Your Sugar, " a website for Aboriginal people with type 2 diabetes (herein after referred to as diabetes). The questions for the evaluation were as follows: how was the website constructed; did target groups utilize the website; and did engagement with the website improve diabetes management. METHODS: A mixed-method study design was employed. A content analysis of project documents provided information about the website construction. Data from Google analytics provided information about website utilization. To describe patterns of website sessions, percentages and numbers were calculated. A voluntary survey provided more information on website utilization and diabetes self-management. Percentage, numbers, and 95% CIs were calculated for each variable. A chi-square test was performed for Aboriginal status, age, gender, and Aboriginal diabetic status using Australian population estimates and Aboriginal diabetes rates. RESULTS: The website development drew on Aboriginal health, social marketing, interactive health promotion frameworks, as well as evidence for diabetes self-management. The website build involved a multidisciplinary team and participation of Aboriginal diabetics, Aboriginal diabetic family members, and Aboriginal health workers. This participation allowed for inclusion of Aboriginal ways of knowing and being. The highest number of website sessions came from Australia, 98.15% (47,717/48,617) and within Australia, Victoria 50.97% (24,323/47,717). There were 129 survey respondents, and the distribution had more female, 82.9% (107/129, 95% CI 76-88), Aboriginal, 21.7% (28/129, 95% CI 16-30), and Aboriginal diabetic, 48% (13/27, 95% CI 31-66) respondents than expected with P<.001 for these three groups. Most common reasons for visits were university assignment research, 40.6% (41/101), and health workers looking for information, 20.8% (21/101). The sample size was too small to calculate diabetes self-management change. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of Aboriginal ways of knowing and being alongside other theoretical and evidence models in Web design is possible. Aboriginal people do utilize Web-based health promotion, and further understanding about reaching to this population would be of use. Provision of an education resource would likely have enhanced educational engagement. Web-based technologies are rapidly evolving, and these can potentially measure behavior change in engaging ways that also have benefits for the participant. A challenge for designers is inclusivity of cultural diversity for self-determination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".