Quality priorities related to the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: results from the COMPAS + quality improvement collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the main type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) quality improvement (QI) challenges identified by primary care teams in the province of Quebec who participated in the COMPAS + QI collaborative. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used to analyse the results of 8 COMPAS + workshops conducted in 4 regions of the province between 2016 and 2020. Deductive content analysis was performed to classify the reported QI priorities under the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains; and proposed change strategies under the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) intervention functions. RESULTS: A total of 177 participants attended the T2DM COMPAS + workshops. Three QI priorities were identified: (1) lack of coordination and integration of T2DM care and services; (2) lack of preventive services for pre-diabetes and T2DM; and (3) lack of integration of the patients-as-partners approach to support T2DM self-management. The proposed QI strategies to address those priorities were classified under the education, training, persuasion, habilitation and restructuring BCW intervention functions. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights on how QI collaboratives can support the identification of QI priorities and strategies to improve T2DM management in primary care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".