Testing proximal, intermediate, and health outcomes of patient centered communication among non-pregnant women of childbearing age with diabetes mellitus: Findings from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2012-2018
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine associations between patient-centered communication (PCC) and overall healthcare ratings, self-efficacy, and management adherence among reproductive-age women with diabetes within the framework of Epstein and Street's conceptual model. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from the 2012-2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The sample included 493 non-pregnant women of childbearing age (18-45 years) with diabetes. Independent variables were domains of PCC (listening, explaining, respecting, spending time, giving instructions, among others). Dependent variables were overall healthcare ratings, self-efficacy, and management adherence. Crude and adjusted associations were evaluated. Results: Non-pregnant women of childbearing age who reported that their provider always listened to them, explained things, showed respect, and spent enough time with them had greater odds of reporting high overall healthcare ratings. Those who reported their provider always listened to them and spent enough time with them had greater odds of reporting better diabetes care adherence than those whose health care providers did not. Conclusion: Findings demonstrate that non-pregnant women of childbearing age who report having optimal PCC are more likely to adhere to their diabetes care regimen. Innovation: This is the first known study using a nationally representative sample of non-pregnant women of childbearing age to examine multiple layers of PCC.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it