Digital Interventions Supporting Self-care in People With Type 2 Diabetes Across Greater Manchester (Greater Manchester Diabetes My Way): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is common, with a prevalence of approximately 7% of the population in the United Kingdom. The quality of T2D care is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, and Greater Manchester (GM) does not currently achieve the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence treatment targets. Barriers to delivery of care include low attendance and poor engagement with local T2D interventions, which tend to consist of programs of education delivered in traditional, face-to-face clinical settings. Thus, a flexible approach to T2D management that is accessible to people from different backgrounds and communities is needed. Diabetes My Way (DMW) is a digital platform that offers a comprehensive self-management and educational program that should be accessible to a wide range of people through mobile apps and websites. Building on evidence generated by a Scotland-wide pilot study, DMW is being rolled out and tested across GM. OBJECTIVE: The overarching objectives are to assess whether DMW improves outcomes for patients with T2D in the GM area, to explore the acceptability of the DMW intervention to stakeholders, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: A mixed methods approach will be used. We will take a census approach to recruitment in that all eligible participants in GM will be invited to participate. The primary outcomes will be intervention-related changes compared with changes observed in a matched group of controls, and the secondary outcomes will be within-person intervention-related changes. The cost-effectiveness analysis will focus on obtaining reliable estimates of how each intervention affects risk factors such as HbA1c and costs across population groups. Qualitative data will be collected via semistructured interviews and focus groups and organized using template analysis. RESULTS: As of May 10, 2021, a total of 316 participants have been recruited for the quantitative study and have successfully enrolled. A total of 278 participants attempted to register but did not have appropriate permissions set by the general practitioners to gain access to their data. In total, 10 participants have been recruited for the qualitative study (7 practitioners and 3 patients). An extension to recruitment has been granted for the quantitative element of the research, and analysis should be complete by December 2022. Recruitment and analysis for the qualitative study should be complete by December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study can be used both to develop the DMW system and improve accessibility and usability in more deprived populations generally, thus improving equity in access to support for T2D self-management. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/26237.
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 | 0.076 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.011 |
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".