Interprofessional care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: family physicians’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of understanding of the team processes and factors that influence teamwork and medication management practices in the care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The purpose of the study was to explore physicians' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to interprofessional care of patients with T2DM within team-based family practice settings. METHODS: This was a qualitative, descriptive study. Participants included physicians affiliated with a primary care network providing care to patients with T2DM in an interprofessional team-based primary care setting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Participants' contact information was obtained from the publicly available College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and respective primary care network websites. Interview questions addressed physicians' perspectives on factors or processes that facilitated and hindered the care and medication management of adult patients with T2DM in primary care team-based clinical practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis and a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: A total of 15 family physicians participated in individual interviews. Family physicians identified facilitators of interprofessional team-based care and medication management of patients with T2DM in three theme areas-access to team members and programs, knowledgeable and skilled health professionals, and provision of patient education by other health professionals. Two themes emerged as barriers to interprofessional care - lack of provider continuity and the loss of skills from delegation of tasks. CONCLUSION: Family physicians perceive both benefits and risks to interprofessional team-based care in caring for patients with T2DM. Successful functioning of team-based care in family practice will require overcoming traditional professional roles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".