Parents’ preferences for follow-up care in a type 1 diabetes paediatric population: a survey-based study in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Examine variations in parent's preferences for their child's type 1 diabetes (T1D) follow-up care and the determinants of the preferred intensity of care. Clinical guidelines recommend multidisciplinary management of T1D, with follow-up visits with an endocrinologist at least every 3 months in the paediatric population. However, there could be heterogeneity in parents' needs, and preferences in terms of care management may deviate from clinical guidelines. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Parents who have a child living with T1D and who reside in Quebec, Canada. INTERVENTION: In collaboration with a patient-partner (a parent of a child with T1D), we developed a survey to collect data from parents of children living with T1D. Our primary outcome of interest was the preferred time in months between two appointments. We ran a probit model to analyse longer time (over 3 months between appointments), compared with the standard of care (3 months or less). RESULTS: Results suggest that about one-third (33%) of parents want to deviate from the guideline. Parents who want to increase the time between appointments are more experienced in the management of the disease and have higher costs than those who wish to follow the 3-month guideline. The number of years since the diagnosis is positively associated with a preference for a longer time between appointments, while the perceived useful of information provided during the consultation, and a parent having made a change in their professional life were negatively associated with a desire to space out appointments. The child's gender is not a significant factor in parents' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Adapting visit protocols could make the health system more efficient to respond to T1D patients and their parent's needs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".