MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008535369 · doi:10.2196/15007

The Diabetes and Emotional Health Handbook and Toolkit for Health Professionals Supporting Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Formative Evaluation

2020· article· en· W3008535369 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDiabetes AustraliaAustralian Government
KeywordsStakeholderFormative assessmentInclusion (mineral)PsychologyMedical educationQualitative researchType 2 diabetesHealth professionalsNursingMedicineHealth careDiabetes mellitusSocial psychologyPublic relationsPedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health professionals have expressed unmet needs, including lacking the skills, confidence, training, and resources needed to properly attend to the psychological needs of people with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: Informed by needs assessments, this study aimed to develop practical, evidence-based resources to support health professionals to address the emotional needs of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We developed a new handbook and toolkit informed by formative evaluation, including literature reviews, stakeholder consultation and review, and a qualitative study. In the qualitative study, health professionals participated in interviews after reading sections of the handbook and toolkit. RESULTS: The literature review uncovered that psychological problems are common among adults with diabetes, but health professionals lack resources to provide related support. We planned and drafted resources to fill this unmet need, guided by stakeholder consultation and an Expert Reference Group (ERG). Before finalizing the resources, we implemented feedback received from stakeholders (ERG, health professionals, academics, and people with diabetes). The resulting resources were the practical, evidence-based Diabetes and Emotional Health handbook and toolkit. A total of 19 health professionals took part in the qualitative study about the handbook and toolkit. They viewed the resources favorably, felt empowered to support people with diabetes experiencing psychological problems, and felt motivated to share the resources with others. Some gave examples of how they had used the handbook in clinical practice. A perceived highlight was the inclusion of a process model outlining 7 steps for identifying and supporting people with emotional problems: the 7 A's model. With funding from the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), more than 2400 copies of Diabetes and Emotional Health have been distributed. It is freely available on the Web. The NDSS is an initiative of the Australian Government administered with the assistance of Diabetes Australia. CONCLUSIONS: The new evidence-based resources are perceived by stakeholders as effective aids to assist health professionals in providing emotional support to adults with diabetes. The 7 A's model may have clinical utility for routine monitoring of other psychological and health-related problems, as part of person-centered clinical care.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.378 · 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