The meaning of diabetes for individuals who develop diabetic foot ulcer: a qualitative study informed by social constructivism and symbolic interactionism frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This qualitative inquiry explored the meaning associated with diabetes for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who developed diabetic foot ulcer (DFU).Methodology This qualitative study used a social constructivism and symbolic interactionism (SI) framework to guide the study design.The participants for this study were 30 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and a DFU who met the research criteria and attended a wound care clinic in Ontario, Canada, between April and August 2017.Results Qualitative content analysis revealed three major subcategories that represent the core category (the meaning of diabetes) along with participants' perception of having diabetes and its particular complication -1) diabetes is a lifelong disease that you need to live with, 2) diabetes can damage your body, and 3) diabetes can kill you slowly. ConclusionsThe complexity of self-care and the consequences of unregulated diabetes influenced participants' perception, meaning, motivation, actions and reactions to diabetes.Understanding that each person with diabetes is unique and may experience or are affected by the disease in different ways helps healthcare providers (HCPs) to better understand how to address each individual's unique and complex needs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".