2410-PUB: Insulin Pumps Accessed through Provincial Funding and Quality of Life: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nova Scotia Insulin Pump Program (NSIPP) subsidizes the cost of insulin pump (CSII) therapy for patients aged 25 and under with type 1 diabetes. Its medical eligibility criteria ensure structured care and follow-up with focused diabetes teams according to provincial guidelines. Studies on CSII and quality of life are mostly survey-based, thus first voice patient experiences are limited. This qualitative study examined patient/parent perspectives on how CSII affects quality of life and is unique in the context of provincial funding. A phenomenological approach was used. In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews averaging 36 minutes were completed with NSIPP enrollees and/or their parents, depending on age. Saturation was reached after 23 interviews. Verbatim transcripts were coded independently by two researchers using NVivo. Analysis began with a discussion of coding discrepancies, which were resolved using concept mapping to clarify relationships between codes and identify main themes. More freedom in daily life, feelings of control over life and diabetes, less worry and more positive intra/interpersonal social experiences were main themes, but how they were expressed depended on the patient’s stage of life. CSII facilitated precise insulin delivery, allowing more freedom in daily activities. This freedom led to feelings of control, less worry and improvements in social life. These outcomes manifested in how common life events were experienced. For example, parents often saw CSII as enabling their teen to gain independence, while young adults focused on CSII supporting them to function at work, school, and in relationships. Finally, NSIPP’s financial help was necessary for those without private insurance and experiences with NSIPP’s defined, structured care and follow-up were positive for all. Overall, NSIPP’s financial support to access CSII therapy and its structured care and follow-up improved quality of life, and the exact ways depended on the patients’ stage of life. Disclosure E.J. Haynes: None. M.N. Ley: None. P.J. Talbot: None. M. Dunbar: None. E.A. Cummings: None. Funding Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".