Level of dietary adherence and determinants among type 2 diabetes population in Ethiopian: A systemic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The beneficial effect of the dietary practice is significant reduction in the risk of developing diabetes related complication. Dietary practice among type 2 diabetes is not well-implemented in Ethiopia. Up to now, in the nation, several primary observational studies have been done on dietary adherence level and its determinants among type 2 diabetes. However, a comprehensive review that would have a lot of strong evidence for designing intervention is lacking. So, this review with a meta-analysis was conducted to bridge this gap. METHODS: A systematic review of an observational study is conducted following the PRISMA checklist. Three reviewers have been searched and extracted from the World Health Organization- Hinari portal (SCOPUS, African Index Medicus, and African Journals Online databases), PubMed, Google Scholar and EMBASE. Articles' quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale by two independent reviewers, and only studies with low and moderate risk were included in the final analysis. The review presented the pooled proportion dietary adherence among type2 diabetes and the odds ratios of risk factors favor to dietary adherence after checking for heterogeneity and publication bias. The review has been registered in PROSPERO with protocol number CRD42020149475. RESULTS: We included 19 primary studies (with 6, 308 participants) in this meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of dietary adherence in the type 2 diabetes population was 41.05% (95% CI: 34.86-47.24, I2 = 93.1%). Educational level (Pooled Odds Ratio (POR): 3.29; 95%CI: 1.41-5.16; I2 = 91.1%), monthly income (POR: 2.50; 95%CI: 1.41-3.52; I2 = 0.0%), and who had dietary knowledge (POR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.59-2.79; I2 = 0.0%) were statistically significant factors of dietary adherence. CONCLUSION: The overall pooled proportion of dietary adherence among type 2 diabetes in Ethiopia was below half. Further works would be needed to improve dietary adherence in the type 2 diabetes population. So, factors that were identified might help to revise the plan set by the country, and further research might be required to health facility fidelity and dietary education according to diabetes recommended dietary guideline.
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 | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".