MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970356934 · doi:10.1002/hpm.2899

Socio‐economic inequalities in diabetes prevalence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2019· article· en· W2970356934 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Khaled Al‐Hanawi, Gowokani Chijere Chirwa, Mohammad Habibullah Pulok

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University
KeywordsInequalityLogistic regressionMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationPublic healthDiabetes mellitusDemographyGerontologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases, including diabetes in the Middle East, is a major public health concern of the 21st century. However, there is a paucity of literature to understand and measure socio-economic inequalities in diabetes prevalence in this region, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). METHODS: This study investigated socio-economic inequalities in diabetes prevalence in the KSA using data from the Saudi Arabia Health Interview Survey. Concentration curve, concentration index, and multivariate logistic regression were used to measure and examine income- and education-related inequalities in diabetes prevalence. RESULTS: The results showed significant socio-economic inequalities in the prevalence of diabetes through analysing a nationally representative sample of the KSA population. Diabetes prevalence was concentrated among the poor and among people with less education. In addition, education-related inequality was higher than income-related inequality. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study are important for policymakers to combat both the increasing prevalence of and socio-economic inequalities in diabetes. The government should promote health education programmes and increase the level of public awareness of diabetes management, especially among the lower educated population in the KSA.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207