<p>Patient perceptions of their glycemic control and its influence on type 2 diabetes outcomes: an international survey of online communities</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess awareness of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) testing and targets, perceived level of glycemic control and risk of complications, attitudes toward medications and self-management, and regimen-related distress in an international sample of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The descriptive study used a single time-point survey of adults in online health communities in the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany, Spain, and Mexico, who self-reported T2D diagnosed by a physician. RESULTS: In total, 661 patients participated. Awareness of their A1C value at last test varied considerably between countries (42%-89%), as did awareness of having an A1C target (26%- 70%). Self-reported A1C values were similar across US, Canadian, and European respondents (mean, 6.8%-7.3%). Approximately two-thirds of respondents from these countries (66%-71%) reported that their T2D was very or fairly well controlled, and few (5%-15%) expected to experience serious complications within 1 year. However, many respondents expected to experience microvascular (rather than macrovascular) complications in this time frame (eg, nerve pain, 5%-47%). Self-reported adherence to oral medication was generally high, with most respondents (86%-98%) taking their pills or tablets as directed by their healthcare provider, although for insulin injections adherence was lower in the USA (71%) and Mexico (78%) than in the other countries (86%-95%). The majority of respondents across countries (71%-79%) reported that taking injectable medications was not at all or a little burdensome. Respondents across countries appeared to be reasonably confident that they could adequately manage their blood sugar levels; despite this, a sizeable minority (21%-35%) had clinically significant levels of regimen-related distress. CONCLUSION: Limited patient awareness of their A1C value and the potential complications of poorly controlled T2D, particularly regarding cardiovascular complications, may be a widespread problem. Furthermore, greater patient support may be needed to improve self-management of T2D and to reduce regimen-related distress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".