Codesigning enhanced models of care for Northern Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth with type 2 diabetes: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Premature onset of type 2 diabetes and excess mortality are critical issues internationally, particularly in Indigenous populations. There is an urgent need for developmentally appropriate and culturally safe models of care. We describe the methods for the codesign, implementation and evaluation of enhanced models of care with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth living with type 2 diabetes across Northern Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our mixed-methods approach is informed by the principles of codesign. Across eight sites in four regions, the project brings together the lived experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (aged 10-25) with type 2 diabetes, their families and communities, and health professionals providing diabetes care through a structured yet flexible codesign process. Participants will help identify and collaborate in the development of a range of multifaceted improvements to current models of care. These may include addressing needs identified in our formative work such as the development of screening and management guidelines, referral pathways, peer support networks, diabetes information resources and training for health professionals in youth type 2 diabetes management. The codesign process will adopt a range of methods including qualitative interviews, focus group discussions, art-based methods and healthcare systems assessments. A developmental evaluation approach will be used to create and refine the components and principles of enhanced models of care. We anticipate that this codesign study will produce new theoretical insights and practice frameworks, resources and approaches for age-appropriate, culturally safe models of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study design was developed in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous researchers, health professionals and health service managers and has received ethical approval across all sites. A range of outputs will be produced to disseminate findings to participants, other stakeholders and the scholarly community using creative and traditional formats.
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 | 0.059 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.009 |
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".