Structuring and organizing interprofessional healthcare in partnership with patients with diabetes: the INterprofessional Management and Education in Diabetes care (INMED) pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes is a complex chronic disease that requires ongoing monitoring by an interprofessional team to prevent complications. The INMED (INterprofessional Management and Education in Diabetes) care pathway was developed by our team to optimize primary care services for these patients and their families. The objective of this study is to describe the preliminary results of its adoption and implementation. The INMED care pathway is organized into four axes: (a) continuing professional education, (b) self-management support, (c) case management, and (d) ongoing evaluation of the quality of diabetes care and services. A multiple-case study is underway to document its effects on practice change using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Preliminary results on the adoption and implementation revealed some strengths: (a) regular patient follow-up by the case manager, (b) scheduling of physician appointments when required, and (c) regular screening for risk factors. Barriers were also identified: (a) lack of clear understanding of the case manager role, (b) lack of referrals to team members, and (c) lack of use of the motivational interview approach. The INMED care pathway is being adopted by primary care teams but challenges need to be overcome to improve its reach and effectiveness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".