A Qualitative Evaluation of Patient Experiences With Group Medical and Individual Education Appointments for Type 2 Diabetes Management in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to capture information on patient experiences and perspectives of group medical appointments (GMAs) and compare them to those attending individual appointments (IAs) with the diabetes education team (usual care) for managing type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Adults (N = 18; 61% male; 83% 50-70 years old ) with type 2 diabetes (or prediabetes) living in rural Saskatchewan were recruited to complete a semistructured interview on their experiences with GMAs or IAs. To be eligible to participate, individuals must have attended at least 2 GMAs or 2 IAs. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, participants spoke highly of their respective appointment type. Results indicated that both appointment types positively influenced understanding of diabetes management, with the most notable difference being greater understanding of stress management in the GMAs. Participants identified several positive aspects of each appointment type, which included convenience, supportive and enjoyable, and informative for GMAs and time and tailored information for IAs. Participants provided some suggestions to improve diabetes related-care for their respective appointment type. CONCLUSIONS: Participants of GMAs and IAs for type 2 diabetes each reported unique strengths to their respective care plan and reported benefiting from their 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".