<p>Association of diabetes knowledge with glycemic control and self-care practices among Pakistani people with type 2 diabetes mellitus</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study explored the relationship of disease knowledge with glycemic control and self-care practices in adult Pakistani people diabetes (PWD). Methods: People diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (n=218) were selected from three health care centers, located in different cities of Pakistan. Disease knowledge and self-care practices were assessed by Urdu versions of Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ), using a cross-sectional design. Chi-square and correlation analysis were applied to explore the relationship of disease knowledge with glycemic control and self-care practices. Linear regression was used to explore the predictors for disease knowledge. Results: Majority of the sample was >45–60 years old (48.8%), suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus for <5 years (49.5%) and had poor glycemic control (HbA1C≥7%; n=181 participants). Disease knowledge was significantly associated ( p <0.05) with patient’s gender, level of education, family history of diabetes, nature of euglycemic therapy, and glycemic control. Correlation matrix showed strongly inverse correlations of DKQ with glycated hemoglobin levels (r=−0.62; p <0.001) and strongly positive with DSMQ sum scale (r=0.63; p <0.001). PWD having university-level education (β=0.22; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.189, 0.872; p <0.01), doing job (β=0.22; 95% CI 0.009, 0.908]; p =0.046), and use of oral hypoglycemic agents in combination with insulin (β=−0.16; 95% CI [−1.224, −0.071]; p =0.028) were the significant predictors for disease knowledge. Conclusion: Disease knowledge significantly correlated with glycated hemoglobin levels and self-care activities of PWD. These findings will help in designing patient-tailored diabetes educational interventions for yielding a higher probability of achieving target glycemic control. Keywords: knowledge, glycated hemoglobin, self-management, glycemic control, HbA1c
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".