A qualitative enquiry of hypoglycemia and the social determinants of health: The InHypo-DM study, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A significant body of research exists on the impact of the social determinants of health (SDoHs) on diabetes care and general health outcomes. However, less is known about health care practitioners' (HCPs') perspectives and experiences regarding the impact of the SDoHs on their patients with Type I and Type 2 diabetes mellitus and how this affects the prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia. METHOD: A descriptive qualitative study, derived from the InHypo-DM (Canada) research program. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit participants residing in southwestern Ontario, Canada, for a 30- to 45-min semistructured interview. Individual and team analysis of interviews was conducted to identify overarching and subthemes. Twenty HCP participants, including endocrinologists, family physicians, and allied health care practitioners, were recruited. Seven were Certified Diabetes Educators. RESULTS: Participants articulated 2 overarching components of the SDoHs: patients' socioeconomic issues and psychosocial issues. They highlighted two socioeconomic issues: occupation type and poverty. Participants also emphasized 3 areas pertaining to patients' psychosocial issues: stage in the life cycle (e.g., elderly), social isolation, and mental health. DISCUSSION: This study emphasizes the need for conducting detailed and comprehensive social histories during clinical diabetes assessments, as well as the necessity of adequate clinical time and resources for HCPs and patients to address these issues in the context of hypoglycemia management. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".