Diabetic patients' knowledge and related factors towards insulin therapy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the knowledge of diabetic patients and related factors regarding insulin therapy. A comprehensive search was systematically conducted across several international electronic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search employed Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords including "knowledge", "insulin", and "diabetes", covering records up to May 1, 2024. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool). A thorough analysis of fourteen cross-sectional studies involving 2,471 diabetic patients revealed an average knowledge level of 56.51 out of 100 regarding insulin therapy. The study identified several significant factors influencing this knowledge level: age, education level, duration of insulin treatment, practical experience, marital status (specifically being single), participation in training courses, urban residence, and male gender. These findings underscore the crucial role of health policymakers and managers in improving diabetic patients’ knowledge of insulin therapy. By targeting interventions toward these specific factors, they can make a significant difference in the lives of diabetic patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".