Diabetes self-management education for older adults in Western countries: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will map the available evidence on diabetes self-management education programs for older adults in Western countries. INTRODUCTION: Self-management and education are crucial for controlling diabetes and its associated complications. The successful uptake of diabetes self-management education programs is not straightforward, and little is known about diabetes programs for older adults. Within this context, a broad overview of diabetes self-management education for older adults, considering all types of related evidence, is needed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All studies in English concerning diabetes self-management education for older adults (aged 65 years and older) living with type 1 or 2 diabetes will be included. This review will not be specific to gender, sex, ethnicity, frailty, or other demographic variables. The review will be restricted to Western countries (North America, Western and Northern Europe, and Australasia), where approaches to diabetes self-management education will be similar. Studies including older adults with or without diabetes will not be considered unless they provide separate analyses for the 2 cohorts. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct searches of electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PubMed, from January 1, 2000, to the present to capture eligible articles. The review will consider all study designs, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods designs, as well as text and opinion papers, and systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria. After duplicates are removed, titles and abstracts will be screened independently by 2 reviewers, and the full texts will be reviewed. The screening criteria and data extraction protocol will be pilot-tested by the research team. The results will be summarized in tables accompanied by narrative text.
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 | 0.098 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.017 |
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".