Difficultés liées à l’autosoin chez les personnes vivant avec le diabète de type 2 : une revue de la littérature narrative basée sur le modèle d’Audulv, Asplund et Norbergh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : self-care activities require a lot of adaptation from people living with type 2 diabetes.Context : existing interventions to support self-care are often determined by a conventional vision focused on managing the disease.Objective : this article aims to present the difficulties of people living with type 2 diabetes in relation with the Audulv, Asplund and Norbergh self-care integration model.Method : a narrative review of the literature on self-care in adults with type 2 diabetes was conducted on the CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PASCAL and FRANÇIS databases.Results : 29 articles were selected. The main difficulties related to self-care are identified according to the four phases of the self-care integration model and the four factors related to the person's life context.Discussion : nurses could pull out some benefits from using the Audulv model by understanding the difficulties that the patients are living with and using this method, they could intervene with a better understanding towards the patients.Conclusion : further studies are needed to elaborate strategies to support people according to each of the identified difficulties.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".