Youth perceptions and experiences of type 2 diabetes: Protocol for a collaborative knowledge translation approach and qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study is to generate an in-depth understanding of youth perceptions and experiences of living with type 2 diabetes to inform knowledge translation, research and intervention development. DESIGN: Interpretive descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: Twenty to 25 youth aged 10-18 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes will be purposively recruited through the Diabetes Education Resource for Children and Adolescents in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and through the Improving Renal Complications in Adolescents With Type 2 Diabetes Through the REsearch [iCARE] cohort. Socio-demographic information will be collected. Semi-structured interviews will occur iteratively with inductive thematic analysis. Data will be professionally transcribed and managed using NVivo 1.0 software. The University Ethics Committee approved this study (May 2020). DISCUSSION: There is a critical gap in understanding youth experiences of type 2 diabetes. Research involving youth with type 2 diabetes is predominantly quantitative in nature, largely reflecting risk factors, underlying mechanisms and treatment outcomes associated with diabetes management. In-depth qualitative research on youth experiences can help identify youth priorities, provide insight into critical misalignments between stakeholder perspectives, and drive forward a more consolidated youth-centred research agenda. IMPACT: Understanding and applying knowledge of youth experiences is critical as the prevalence of, and challenges associated with, youth onset type 2 diabetes continues to increase worldwide. This research will generate a robust interpretive description of youth lived experiences and perceptions of type 2 diabetes where such research is lacking, to inform basic and applied research within an interdisciplinary investigative and clinical research team with relevance to other jurisdictions. In response to calls for youth-oriented research in type 2 diabetes, this work will catalyse collaborative knowledge translation using creative and youth-directed initiatives.
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 | 0.071 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.009 |
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".