Capturing Diabetes-Related Distress and Burden From the Perspective of Patients With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for an Explorative Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the most common diseases worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and reduced quality of life. Many patients experience high diabetes-related distress as well as depression and anxiety symptoms, which are associated with poor diabetes self-management. As disease management is a central component in diabetes treatment, poor management enhances the occurrence of micro- and macrovascular complications. This emphasizes the relevance of reducing diabetes-related distress and providing adequate treatment options addressing the individual psychosocial burden of patients with diabetes. Since patients' perspectives diverge significantly from those of practitioners in terms of relevant treatment aspects, the patient perspective on, for example, barriers to and facilitators of diabetes treatment is crucial for adequate and effective treatment as well as improvements to self-management and therefore, needs to be further explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine diabetes-related distress, the course of distress throughout diabetes management, as well as barriers and facilitating factors in dealing with diabetes from the individual perspective of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The study employs a mixed methods design combining qualitative and quantitative data. Semistructured interviews (N=40) will be conducted with patients with type 1 diabetes (n=20) and patients with type 2 diabetes (n=20). The primary outcomes comprise (1) diabetes-related distress, (2) the severity of distress, (3) the course of distress throughout diabetes management, (4) barriers, and (5) facilitating factors. Questionnaires will provide data on the following secondary outcomes: diabetes-related emotional distress (the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale), symptoms of depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire, German version), personality functioning (Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis-Structure Questionnaire), mentalizing capacities (Mentalization Questionnaire), epistemic trust (Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire) and experiences of child maltreatment (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire), and the overall health status of the patient (routine medical data). RESULTS: As of April 2022, the conceptualization phase of the study was finalized. Ethics approval was received in January 2022 from the local ethics committee of the Justus Liebig University Giessen - Faculty of Medicine (AZ 161/21). CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide insights into the individual perspective of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes regarding their experiences with diabetes management and what they perceive to be relevant, obstructive, or beneficial. The insights gained could help further tailor diabetes treatment to the individual needs of patients with diabetes and therefore optimize diabetes self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00024999; https://tinyurl.com/2wb4xdh8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/38477.
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 | 0.087 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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".