MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381598077 · doi:10.2196/41902

Evaluation of Diabetes Care Performance in Cambodia Through the Cascade-of-Care Framework: Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4381598077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vannarath Te, Srean Chhim, Veerle Buffel, Wim Van Damme, Josefien van Olmen, Por Ir, Edwin Wouters

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVLIRUOSVlaamse Interuniversitaire RaadEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineGlycated hemoglobinCross-sectional studyType 2 diabetesHealth careLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthPopulationPublic healthFamily medicineGerontologyDiabetes mellitusNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cambodia has seen an increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) over the last 10 years. Three main care initiatives for T2D are being scaled up in the public health care system across the country: hospital-based care, health center-based care, and community-based care. To date, no empirical study has systematically assessed the performance of these care initiatives across the T2D care continuum in Cambodia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the performance of the 3 care initiatives-individually or in coexistence-and determine the factors associated with the failure to diagnose T2D in Cambodia. METHODS: We used a cascade-of-care framework to assess the T2D care continuum. The cascades were generated using primary data from a cross-sectional population-based survey conducted in 2020 with 5072 individuals aged ≥40 years. The survey was conducted in 5 operational districts (ODs) selected based on the availability of the care initiatives. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors associated with the failure to diagnose T2D. The significance level of P<.05 was used as a cutoff point. RESULTS: Of the 5072 individuals, 560 (11.04%) met the definition of a T2D diagnosis (fasting blood glucose level ≥126 mg/dL and glycated hemoglobin level ≥6.5%). Using the 560 individuals as the fixed denominator, the cascade displayed substantial drops at the testing and control stages. Only 63% (353/560) of the participants had ever tested their blood glucose level in the last 3 years, and only 10.7% (60/560) achieved blood glucose level control with the cutoff point of glycated hemoglobin level <8%. The OD hosting the coexistence of care displayed the worst cascade across all bars, whereas the OD with hospital-based care had the best cascade among the 5 ODs. Being aged 40 to 49 years, male, and in the poorest category of the wealth quintile were factors associated with the undiagnosed status. CONCLUSIONS: The unmet needs for T2D care in Cambodia were large, particularly in the testing and control stages, indicating the need to substantially improve early detection and management of T2D in the country. Rapid scale-up of T2D care components at public health facilities to increase the chances of the population with T2D of being tested, diagnosed, retained in care, and treated, as well as of achieving blood glucose level control, is vital in the health system. Specific population groups susceptible to being undiagnosed should be especially targeted for screening through active community outreach activities. Future research should incorporate digital health interventions to evaluate the effectiveness of the T2D care initiatives longitudinally with more diverse population groups from various settings based on routine data vital for integrated care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN41932064; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN41932064. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/36747.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207