MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946459353 · doi:10.2337/ds18-0083

Food Insecurity Screening Among Families of Children With Diabetes

2019· article· en· W2946459353 on OpenAlex
Michele Vitale, Linda Dorado, Vanita Pais, Souraya Sidani, Enza Gucciardi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Spectrum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleFamily medicineInterviewType 2 diabetesScale (ratio)Stigma (botany)NursingDiabetes mellitusPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about screening in clinical settings for food insecurity (FI) among households of children with diabetes. This study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of an FI screening initiative in a pediatric diabetes clinic that was implemented to help diabetes dietitian educators tailor management plans for families of children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes facing FI. The initiative comprised three validated screening questions, a care algorithm, a community resource handout, and a poster. In total, 50 families of children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were screened for FI. In-person semi-structured interviews combining open-ended and Likert-scale questions were conducted with 37 of the screened families and the three diabetes dietitian educators who conducted the screening. Perceived barriers and facilitators of the screening initiative were identified using content analysis, and Likert-scale questionnaires rated interviewees' comfort level with the screening questions. A reflective journal kept by an onsite research interviewer also facilitated the data interpretation process. Most families felt comfortable answering the screening questions. Families with FI appreciated the opportunity to express their concerns and learn about affordable food resources. However, ∼20% of these families described stigma and fear of judgment by clinicians if they screened positive for FI. Diabetes educators also felt comfortable with the screening questions but reported lack of time to screen all families and to follow-up with resources after a positive screen. A self-reported intake form was recommended to ensure that everyone is systematically screened. A standardized and respectful method of assessing FI could help clinicians better tailor treatment plans and support for families of children with diabetes who face FI. Based on these findings, similar FI screening initiatives should be implemented in other clinical settings as part of routine clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it