Using Person-Reported Outcomes (PROs) to Motivate Young People with Diabetes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This manuscript describes how person-reported outcomes (PROs) can be utilized in care for young people with diabetes in the context of motivation. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of person-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in clinical care is feasible and acceptable, and helps focus the clinical encounter on life domains important to the person with diabetes. Results with regard to impact on self-management and glycemic outcomes are limited. Motivation is an important factor for self-management. Based on self-determination theory, autonomy-supportive, person-centered, and collaborative communication by diabetes care providers is associated with better outcomes. PROMs can facilitate this conversation. Understanding of youth motivation for maintaining or improving self-management behaviors requires a person-centered approach. PROMs can be used to facilitate an autonomy-supportive and person-centered conversation in clinical care. Training diabetes care providers in autonomy-supportive, person-centered conversation skills to discuss PROs might help to tap into youth's motivation, but further research is needed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it