Family interventions for adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A qualitative meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Review and synthesize qualitative research on family interventions for adults living with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A qualitative metasynthesis was conducted. Analysis used imported concepts from realist evaluation - context, mechanisms, and outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria in this qualitative systematic review. Powerful mechanisms were identified that occur outside the family intervention in the context of ethnic, racialized, and geographically defined groups. Many similarities were noted across contexts, such as low income. Mechanisms of interventions focused primarily on family member education. Outcomes were focused more on improving self-care behaviors, rather than family-oriented outcomes. CONCLUSION: Systemic issues affecting social determinants of health set the context for family interventions for type 2 diabetes. When designing these interventions, intersectionality, scarcity, and family functioning may need to be considered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Emphasis on education of family members may not be effective in improving diabetes outcomes, as many powerful mechanisms exist outside of these interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".