Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia Study: Results of Hypoglycemia Experiences in Canadian Adults With Insulin-Treated Diabetes and Their Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia cross-sectional study was conducted to better understand the severe hypoglycemia experiences in persons with diabetes (PWD) and their caregivers (CGs). METHODS: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CGs were recruited in 8 countries; Canadian cohort data are reported in this study. Insulin-treated PWD who reported a severe hypoglycemic event within the past 3 years and CGs who care for PWD ≥4 years old and who met the criteria were eligible for the study. Participants completed an online survey about their experience with severe hypoglycemia, its treatment and actions during and after severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Of the 324 respondents, 139 (43%) reported discussions about severe hypoglycemia with a health-care provider (HCP) at every visit. During the most recent severe hypoglycemic event, the most common actions taken included ingestion of oral carbohydrates and calling emergency medical services; glucagon was rarely used. Despite many respondents (67%) feeling scared because of the most recent severe hypoglycemic event, only 55% (51% with type 1 and 61% with type 2) discussed this event with an HCP. The event affected the mood/emotional status, physical activities and sleep of PWD and CGs. CONCLUSIONS: Severe hypoglycemia impacts the emotional and physical status of PWD and CGs. Despite this, many respondents did not report discussions about the most recent severe hypoglycemic event with HCPs. Furthermore, <50% of the respondents reported discussions about severe hypoglycemia with HCPs at every visit. Purposeful communication about severe hypoglycemia can help fulfil Diabetes Canada guideline recommendations to review experiences with hypoglycemia among PWD at every visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".