500-P: Gaps in Patient Education upon Initial Diabetes Diagnosis among Adults Living with Type 1 and 2 Diabetes in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient education is an essential component of diabetes care that can influence diabetes management self-efficacy and help prevent long-term health complications for people with diabetes (PWD) . The present study aims to understand unmet needs in patient education upon initial diabetes bolddiagnosis. In December 2021, 1,056 adult PWD in the United States completed an online survey in which they indicated their satisfaction with the education they received from their healthcare provider (HCP) upon first being diagnosed with diabetes on a 10-point scale. Respondents who were diagnosed within the last years and gave a satisfaction score of 1-6 were asked to explain what information they wish they had received upon diagnosis. The subsequent 472 qualitative write-in responses (29% type 1, 74% female) were coded and analyzed. Among all respondents, 47% were not satisfied with the information they received at diagnosis (satisfaction score of 1-6) . Over a fifth of type 1 (22%) and over a quarter of type 2 (27%) adults reported receiving little to no information about diabetes from their HCP upon diagnosis. Over a quarter (28%) of type 1 PWD reported being initially misdiagnosed or not properly diagnosed at all, and 7% reported a lack of empathy from their HCP upon diagnosis. Type 1 PWD also reported gaps in education on monitoring and managing blood glucose levels (22%) , diet and exercise management (12%) , and diabetes technology options (10%) . Type 2 PWD most commonly reported a need for more information on diet and exercise management (37%) ; 17% also reported a lack of education on monitoring and managing managingblood glucose levels. These results highlight widely reported gaps in adequate diabetes education and support from healthcare providers at the time of PWDs’ initial diagnosis. Steps must be taken to provide PWD with improved education and empower PWD in their diabetes management with the help of free, accurate, and accessible resources. Disclosure E.Xu: Employee; dQ&A. R.Gowen: Other Relationship; Abbott Diabetes, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, LifeScan, Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Virta Health Corp. J.Stevenson: Other Relationship; Abbott Diabetes, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, LifeScan, Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. E.Monroy-spangenberg: Employee; dQ&A, Stock/Shareholder; Senseonics. R.Wood: Other Relationship; Multiple companies and patient organizations (>10) .
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".