Living Well With Type 1 Diabetes for 40 Years or More
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although many studies explore the experiences of persons with type 1 diabetes, most examine the experience of children, adolescents, or persons in transition to adulthood. Few studies focus on the person living long term with type 1 diabetes. Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore the facilitators and barriers for people living well with type 1 diabetes over the long term. Methods An inductive interpretive description approach was used to explore living with type 1 diabetes for a duration of 40 years or more. Qualitative semistructured interviews with a convenience sample (n = 8) were conducted. Results Four dialectic themes were identified: accommodating and battling the disease, convenience and constraint of technology and treatment, self-reliance and reliance on others, and external and personal knowledge. Conclusions Recommendations for the health-care team emphasize person-centered care with acknowledgment of the person as expert and as more than their condition. Further research with this population would strengthen the implications for practice. Specifically, research is needed on diabetes distress, losses experienced due to diabetes, how to meet their educational needs, and how to tap into their expertise for the benefit of those with type 1 following them.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".