Type 1 diabetes outcomes: Does distance to clinic matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives To access care, pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients living in British Columbia (BC), Canada, travel to the sole tertiary pediatric hospital (BC Children's Hospital; BCCH), or they receive community care from pediatric endocrinologists and/or pediatricians. We sought to determine whether hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) and patient-reported outcomes were associated with (1) distance to clinic and (2) tertiary vs community care. Methods Patients were recruited from T1D clinics across BC. Clinical chart review and patient surveys were completed, including the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Clinic type was categorized as tertiary (BCCH) or community, and the travel time to BCCH was categorized as <1 hour, 1 to 2 hours, or >2 hours. Results There were 189 participants. Age and duration of T1D were similar across groups. Mean number of visits/year for BCCH groups were 2.23, 2.24, and 2.05 for the <1-hour, 1- to 2-hour, and >2-hour groups, respectively, vs 3.26 for the community group. Adjusted mean difference in HbA1C was +0.65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15, 1.15) and +0.52% (95% CI: 0.02, 1.02) for the BCCH >2-hour group compared to the BCCH <1-hour group and community groups, respectively. Child DTSQ scores were significantly lower in the BCCH >2-hour group compared to the BCCH <1-hour and community groups. Conclusions Children traveling >2 hours to T1D clinic at BCCH had significantly higher HbA1C values and lower satisfaction with care vs those traveling <1 hour to BCCH and those receiving community care. Access to care closer to home may benefit glycemic control in children with T1D and improve treatment satisfaction. Future research should determine whether these findings can be replicated in other regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".