A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Randomized Control Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Pure Prairie Living Program in Type 2 Diabetes Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this randomized control trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pure Prairie Living Program (PPLP) in a primary care setting. Adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized into intervention (PPLP, n = 25) and wait-listed controls (CON, n = 24). The PPLP group participated in education sessions. The intervention yielded no significant within-group changes in HbA1c at three-month (−0.04 (−0.27 to 0.17) and −0.15 (−0.38 to 0.08)) or six-month (−0.09 (−0.41 to 0.22) and 0.06 (−0.26 to 0.38)) follow ups in either CON or PPLP groups, respectively. Dietary adherence scores improved in the PPLP group (p < 0.05) at three and six months but were not different in the between-group comparison. No changes in diabetes self-efficacy scores were detected. In the qualitative analysis, participants described the program as clear and easy to understand. Knowledge acquired influenced their everyday decision making but participants faced barriers that prevented them from fully applying what they learned. Healthcare professionals enjoyed delivering the program but described the “back-stage” workload as detrimental. In conclusion, while some positive effects of the PPLP intervention were observed, they were not comparable to those previously attained by our group in an academic setting or to what the guidelines recommend, which reflects the challenge of translating lifestyle intervention to real-world settings.
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 | 0.049 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".