Developing a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes clinic encounters: The Promoting Adolescents Communication and Engagement study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on long-term health conditions indicates that adolescents are not actively involved during their medical visits. Active involvement is essential because this can help adolescents learn how to self-manage their treatment plan. OBJECTIVE: To co-design a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes visits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: A participatory-led approach was used to co-design the video, through a combination of interviews/ focus groups and the establishment of a Youth Advisory Group. METHODS: First, focus groups and one-to-one interviews were held with adolescents, parents and healthcare providers. Second, two workshops were held with the Youth Advisory Group, Parent Advisory Group and stakeholders on script design. Finally, an iterative development of the video took place between the research team, videographer, both advisory groups and the steering committee. There were three rounds of feedback before the video was finalised. RESULTS: Adolescents' content preferences included: 1) message of empowerment; 2) managing your diabetes so you can get on with the fun stuff in life; 3) Promoting independence; 4) Reasons for not speaking at clinic visits and reassurance; 5) Becoming comfortable to speak and ask questions at clinic visits; 6) Practical advice on how to ask questions. Formatting preferences included that the video should be short, divided into segments, with adolescents with diabetes acting in it, and speaking directly to the camera. DISCUSSION: Identifying and reflecting adolescents' needs and preferences for engagement with healthcare providers was critical in the development process. Adolescents' participation in the co-design process was pivotal to the acceptability of the intervention for adolescents with diabetes. PRACTICAL VALUE: The intervention may increase adolescents' participation in communication and interactions with healthcare providers, which may help them to be more active in the self-management of their condition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".