Experience of Telephone-Based Diabetes Health Coaching Among Community-Based Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In the past decade, diabetes health coaching, also referred to as diabetes coaching, has emerged as a patient-centered intervention to help individuals with type 2 diabetes gain independence with self-management. This study explores the perceived experience of receiving telephone-based diabetes health coaching among adults living with type 2 diabetes. Method A qualitative exploration with an interpretive descriptive design was carried out. Participants from the intervention group of a larger randomized controlled trial who had received a telephone-based diabetes coaching intervention throughout 1 year were invited to participate in a telephone interview with open-ended questions. Results Twelve participants were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: 1) adapting to ongoing challenges with type 2 diabetes, reflecting how coaching helped individuals integrate diabetes into their daily lives by addressing misconceptions, improving knowledge, encouraging awareness, and easing the transition from oral medication to insulin injections; 2) heightened mindfulness of diabetes-related wellness, capturing the greater attention participants gave to their overall well-being and self-management behaviors; 3) behavior change guided by the participant, highlighting the differences in participants’ motivation, readiness to make changes, and external factors that influenced their ability to make self-management behavior changes; and 4) valuing a supportive relationship, illustrating that most participants felt that the unique coach-client relationship was reliable, holistic, nonjudgmental, and encouraging. Conclusion Participants found diabetes coaching to be positive and highlighted the various ways it was able to support their ability to manage diabetes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".