1110-P: Endocrinologists' Perceptions and Implementation of Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction & Objective: Most adults with T1D do not meet the HbA1c target of ≤7.0%. Endocrinologists’ perceptions may influence target attainment among patients, but have not been previously evaluated. We evaluated endocrinologists’ acceptability of the HbA1c target of ≤7.0%. Methods: An online REDCap survey was sent to all 309 adult endocrinologists in Ontario. Acceptability of the HbA1c target of ≤7.0% was assessed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), which evaluates interventions according to seven domains: affective attitude (feelings), burden (required effort), perceived effectiveness (likelihood of achieving purpose), ethicality (fit with personal values), intervention coherence (understanding), opportunity costs (potential negative effects), and self-efficacy (confidence). Agreement with statements representing each domain was rated by 5-point Likert scale. Acceptability was considered high if the proportion agreeing or strongly agreeing (A/SA) was >70% (or proportion disagreeing or strongly disagreeing was <30% for opportunity costs domain). Results: 120 eligible endocrinologists (39%) completed the survey [69 (58%) female, 95 (82%) urban practice, and 53 (46%) aged 30-40 years]. TFA domains with high acceptability were intervention coherence (91% A/SA), ethicality (87% A/SA) and affective attitude (75% A/SA). Domains with low acceptability were self-efficacy (46% A/SA), perceived effectiveness (67% A/SA), burden (35.8% A/SA) and opportunity costs (33% disagree/strongly disagree). Responses suggest a disconnect whereby endocrinologists highly value the HbA1c target of ≤7.0% but perceive challenges in implementation. Conclusion: Endocrinologists’ endorsement of the HbA1c target despite acknowledged barriers to implementation could negatively influence the physician-patient relationship. The potential benefits and risks of alternative patient-centered HbA1c targets requires further exploration. Disclosure S. Kaushal: None. I. Halperin: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Sanofi, Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. G.A. Hawker: None. A. Weisman: None. Funding Banting & Best Diabetes Centre Sunlife Financial New Investigator Award
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".