Beyond “Watching the Sweets”: An interpretive description of adolescent's understandings and insights into preventing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore adolescents' experiences and knowledge of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and identify appropriate T2D education and prevention interventions for this population. DESIGN AND METHODS: This interpretive description study was conducted at two urban high schools in midwestern Canada. Participants had been previously screened and considered at high risk for T2D, prediabetes, or as having T2D. Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with twelve adolescents between the age of 14-19 years meeting these criteria. Thematic analysis was completed using interview transcripts. RESULTS: Themes and subthemes identified included (1) Type 2 Diabetes: More Than Too Many Sweets (Mostly Diet but Insulin Does Play a Role, and A Serious but Common Disease); (2) Who Holds the Power? (Personal Responsibility for Health, Family as Role Models, and Community Connections); and (3) Bringing Home the Message (Our Considerations for Schools, I need the Expert's Support, and Using Technology to Get the Points Across). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this study provide target areas for education and prevention interventions and approaches for working with adolescents surrounding prediabetes and T2D that may be effective.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".