Emerging practices supporting diabetes self-management among food insecure adults and families: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Food insecurity undermines a patient’s ability to follow diabetes self-management recommendations. Care providers need strategies to direct their support of diabetes management among food insecure patients and families. Objective To identify what emerging practices health care providers can relay to patients or operationalize to best support diabetes self-management among food insecure adults and families. Eligibility criteria Food insecure populations with diabetes (type 1, type 2, prediabetes, gestational diabetes) and provided diabetes management practices specifically for food insecure populations. Only studies in English were considered. In total, 21 articles were reviewed. Sources of evidence Seven databases: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Results Emerging practices identified through this review include screening for food insecurity as a first step, followed by tailoring nutrition counseling, preventing hypoglycemia through managing medications, referring patients to professional and community resources, building supportive care provider-patient relationships, developing constructive coping strategies, and decreasing tobacco smoking. Conclusion Emerging practices identified in our review include screening for food insecurity, nutrition counselling, tailoring management plans through medication adjustments, referring to local resources, improving care provider–patient relationship, promoting healthy coping strategies, and decreasing tobacco use. These strategies can help care providers better support food insecure populations with diabetes. However, some strategies require further evaluation to enhance understanding of their benefits, particularly in food insecure individuals with gestational and prediabetes, as no studies were identified in these populations. A major limitation of this review is the lack of global representation considering no studies outside of North America satisfied our inclusion criteria, due in part to the English language restriction.
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 | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".