Evaluation of <i>Support</i> , a self-guided online type 1 diabetes self-management education and support web application—a mixed methods study
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
Background Type 1 diabetes requires making numerous daily decisions to maintain normoglycemia. Support is an evidence-based self-guided web application for type 1 diabetes diabetes self-management. Objective Evaluate users’ satisfaction with Support and investigate changes in self-reported frequency of-, fear of- hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related self-efficacy. Methods Adults from a Quebec type 1 diabetes registry used Support. Data was collected through online surveys or extracted from the registry at 0, 6, and 12 months (number of episodes and fear of hypoglycemia). At 6 months, participants reported satisfaction with Support and diabetes-related self-efficacy. A sub-group of 16 users was interviewed about their experience . Transcripts were analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Results In total, 207 accounts were created (35% men, 96% White, mean age and diabetes duration: 49.3 ± 13.8 and 25.2 ± 14.7 years). At 6 months, the median [Q1; Q3] satisfaction was 40/49 [35; 45] with a mean decrease in hypoglycemia frequency of 0.43 episodes over 3 days (95% CI: −0.86; 0.00, p = 0.051) and of −1.98 score for fear (95% CI: −3.76; −0.20, p = 0.030). Half of the participants reported increased diabetes-related self-efficacy. Conclusions Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with Support. Its use has the potential to facilitate hypoglycemia management and increase diabetes-related self-efficacy. Trial registration This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04233138.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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