Participant Evaluation of a Prediabetes Intervention Program Designed for Rural Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The type 2 diabetes epidemic is a global crisis threatening the health and economies of many nations. This study aimed to evaluate a prediabetes intervention program designed for rural adults in southwestern Ontario based on the feedback of participants. Rural adults with prediabetes were referred by physicians to an intervention program developed to assist with unique barriers rural adults face related to the built environment and socioeconomic status when adopting a healthy lifestyle. After 6 monthly education sessions offered by a dietitian and a nurse, participants completed a questionnaire to share their program experience. In addition, 6 focus groups consisting of 5-9 participants were conducted to assess program acceptability, feasibility, and practicality. Of 49 enrolled, 35 participants aged 60.8 ± 7.1 (mean ± SD) evaluated the program. Participants reported finding the program to be acceptable, feasible, and practical due to the interactive nature of the sessions, the group setting and the availability of health professionals. This prediabetes lifestyle intervention program was perceived as successfully addressing rural adults' needs in terms of adopting a healthy lifestyle. Feedback received through program evaluation, which included a participant experience survey and focus groups has helped improve this program and may benefit other prediabetes education intervention programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".