Taking control of diabetes: child and adolescent perspectives on the evolution of self-care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study employed an ethnographic approach to explore perspectives of children and adolescents on diabetes self-care. Their knowledge of diabetes and feelings about having the disease was also addressed. Rooted in the new sociological approach that acknowledges children’s right to participate in issues that concern them, forty eight paediatric patients between the ages of five and eighteen years participated in individual interviews. Participants were recruited from a diabetes outpatient clinic within the largest paediatric hospital in Canada. Data were coded using McCracken’s (1988) method of analysis. This paper presents a focused analysis of three major themes: self-care, knowledge and feelings. In-depth analyses of these integrated themes provided a rich understanding of how children and adolescents with diabetes come to accept their disease and how the process of self-care evolves over time. Despite the emotional challenges and complexity of managing diabetes, children and adolescents spoke of a resolve and readiness to obtain more knowledge about their disease. This paper describes the process of diabetes self-care from the perspectives of children and adolescents and offers suggestions for clinical practice and future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".