Training of Community Health Workers in Diabetes Lead to Improved Outcomes for Diabetes Screening and Management in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a growing concern worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Type 2 diabetes mellitus constitutes a significant proportion of cases and is associated with debilitating microvascular complications. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is steadily increasing among the LMICs where many barriers to health care exist. Thus, task shifting to community health workers (CHWs) has been proposed as a solution to improve diabetes management in these settings. However, CHWs often lack the necessary training to manage diabetes effectively. Thus, a systematic review is required to present evidence of the highest degree for this intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish the protocols for a systemic review. METHODS: levels and fasting blood glucose levels, between January 2000 and December 2023 and found on databases such as PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, BASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science will be included. We will include randomized controlled trials but will also include observational studies if we find less than 5 randomized controlled trials. An author committee consisting of 3 reviewers will be formed, where 2 reviewers will conduct the review independently while the third will resolve all disputes. The Cochrane Methods Risk of Bias Tool 2 will be used for assessing the risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for the meta-analysis and narrative synthesis analysis will be used. The results will be presented in a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. RESULTS: The review will begin in May 2024 and conclude in 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The review will synthesize existing evidence and provide insights into the effectiveness of such programs, informing future research and practice in diabetes care in LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022341717; https://tinyurl.com/jva2hpdr. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/57313.
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 | 0.095 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".