Patients’ expectations and solutions for improving primary diabetes care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to document health care needs expressed by people living with diabetes, describe the solutions they envisaged for improving the quality of primary care (PC) services and empower them to make better use of PC services. Design/methodology/approach A participatory research approach was used. Six workshops were organised to provide diabetes patients with knowledge on available services and to engage them in sharing their experience. Group discussions were recorded. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method. Findings In total, 79 persons living with diabetes for a mean of 13 years participated. Needs expressed were grouped under seven themes: assurance of satisfactory follow-up by a family physician, continuous access to services adapted to evolving needs, motivation to adopt and maintain healthy behaviours, maintenance of knowledge about diabetes, psychological support, financial constraints, and collaboration with secondary-level services. Patients proposed solutions for improving services that were grouped under five themes: facilitating access to services, disseminating information about available services, centralising diabetes information on the internet, offering personalised services and improving interprofessional collaboration. Practical implications Needs expressed by diabetic patients concern different aspects of care such as accessibility, organisation, coordination, and better dissemination and visibility of services. The solutions proposed by patients focussed on better access to information and interprofessional services. Originality/value The workshop format used in this study offers an original and interesting approach and tool for actively engaging patients in quality improvement of services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".