MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986469028 · doi:10.1177/2333393620981058

The Lived Experience of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Phenomenological Inquiry

2021· article· en· W2986469028 on OpenAlexaff
V. Renee Callahan Fagan, Karen Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Qualitative Nursing Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenology (philosophy)Lived experienceType 1 diabetesHealth professionalsMetabolic control analysisPopularityEveryday lifeInterpretative phenomenological analysisMedicineInsulin pumpPsychologyFlexibility (engineering)Diabetes mellitusQualitative researchPsychotherapistHealth careSocial psychologySociologyEndocrinologyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a complex, medical device for the management of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM). There is limited research exploring the everyday experiences living with this device. The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experience of adults using CSII therapy to manage T1DM. Lived experiences from eight individuals were collected through semi-structured interviews and then analyzed using a hermeneutic approach to phenomenology. Four substantive themes with supporting subthemes were identified and represent the essence of participant experiences; that is, living with CSII eventually took ascendancy over managing T1DM.CSII therapy has gained popularity due to reported improvements in metabolic control and flexibility. However, the burden of the responsibility and psychological implications of CSII took ascendancy over T1DM. Living with CSII impacts the psychological well-being of individuals so psychological complications are as important to assess by healthcare professionals as physical and metabolic complications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Qualitative Nursing ResearchSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207