The Rapid Implementation of an Innovative Virtual Diabetes Boot Camp Program: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted health care, causing a decline in the health of patients with chronic diseases and a need to reimagine diabetes care. With the advances in telehealth programs, there is a need to effectively implement programs that meet the needs of patients quickly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to create a virtual boot camp program for patients with diabetes, in 3 months, from project conception to the enrollment of our first patients. Our goal is to provide practical strategies for rapidly launching an effective virtual program to improve diabetes care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of physicians, dieticians, and educators, with support from the telehealth team, created a virtual program for patients with diabetes. The program combined online diabetes data tracking with weekly telehealth visits over a 12-week period. RESULTS: Over 100 patients have been enrolled in the virtual diabetes boot camp. Preliminary data show an improvement of diabetes in 75% (n=75) of the patients who completed the program. Four principles were identified and developed to reflect the quick design and launch. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid launch of a virtual diabetes program is feasible. A coordinated, team-based, systematic approach will facilitate implementation and sustained adoption across a large multispecialty ambulatory health care organization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".