Attendance, activation and health profiles of participants, a prospective study on a regional cardiometabolic disease self-management program in Laval, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are responsible for over 70% of all deaths globally. While some self-management programs have been shown to be efficacious in preventing or altering trajectories for some chronic conditions, scaling-up and sustaining such programs beyond tightly-controlled study conditions remain a major challenge. CISSS-Laval partnered with the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program team to co-develop Cible-santé/prévention and evaluate the first cohort of participants enrolled in the program, in order to better understand the program's implementation and scope. The objective of the current study was to describe the profile of attendees and the level of engagement of participants in a new, region-wide cardiometabolic disease self-management program offered in Laval, Canada. METHODS: This was a prospective study with no comparison group. Potential participants were identified and referred to the program from April to December 2015 by their primary care health professional practicing in one of the city's interdisciplinary primary care clinics. They had their blood pressure, waist circumference and body mass index measured by trained volunteers, and completed a questionnaire on health habits, level of activation and the risk of developing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes over the next 10 years. RESULTS: A descriptive analysis of the first cohort of 141 Cible-Santé/prévention participants showed very low attendance. Furthermore, only 1 in 10 of enrolled participants completed the full program. The program typically attracted adults with some risk factors associated with their conditions (high waist circumference, obesity), but with an already high level of knowledge, skills and confidence to participate in self-management activities. CONCLUSION: This study provides a portrait of new participants to a self-management cardiometabolic disease program, which highlights the potential of supporting patients ready to make changes but also exposes the difficulty of attracting a larger number and diversity of participants and in encouraging completion of the program.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".