1246-P: Mental Health among Youth Living with Type 2 Diabetes in Manitoba: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mental health comorbidities are common in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The magnitude of mental health comorbidities in youth with T2D and possible protective factors against comorbidities, remain unclear, as previous studies have not compared outcomes with population-based samples or included measures of resilience. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 178 Indigenous youth (15 yrs IQR: 13-17 yrs) with T2D from the iCARE cohort study and 270 randomly sampled population-based controls (15-24 yrs), from the Canadian Community Health Survey - Mental Health Component. Overall positive mental health and flourishing were assessed with the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. Depression, anxiety and severe mental illness (SMI) were assessed with the Kessler Distress Scale. Measures of resilience were assessed in youth with T2D using the 64-question Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents. Results: Youth with T2D, were more likely to be female (65 vs. 49%), Indigenous (96 vs. 29%), live remotely (70 vs. 26%) and within a low income neighbourhood (p<0.0001 for all characteristics). After adjusting for these differences, youth living with T2D displayed lower positive mental health (-11.0, 95%CI: -13.3, -8.6), higher distress (3.53, 95% CI: 2.76, 4.29) and higher depression scores (2.76, 95% CI: 2.19, 3.32). Youth with T2D were also more likely to have SMI (aOR: 5.81, 95% CI: 2.2, 15.4) and are less likely to be flourishing (aOR 0.27, 95%CI: 0.18, 0.41) compared to population based controls. A sense of mastery and relatedness were associated with higher positive mental health and less depression and anxiety in youth with T2D. Conclusion: Youth with T2D live with a profound degree of mental health comorbidities relative to the general population of in Manitoba, Canada. Future studies are required to address the specific mental health needs youth with T2D and determined best clinical care practices. Disclosure J. Mcgavock: None. B. Wicklow: None. E. Sellers: None. K. Kroeker: None. T. Blydt-Hansen: None. A. Dart: None. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Diabetes Canada; Research Manitoba
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".