MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404717630 · doi:10.1089/dia.2024.0366

The Impact of Public Policy on Equitable Access to Technology for Children and Youth Living with Type 1 Diabetes in British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404717630 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey N. Bone, Courtney Leach, Ananta Addala, Shazhan Amed

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPublic healthGerontologyEconomic growthEnvironmental healthFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:Structural inequities impede technology uptake in marginalized populations living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to describe hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), time in range (TIR), and pump use to evaluate the impact of a universal funding policy for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) across levels of deprivation in children with T1D in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Methods:Patients with T1D and at least one outpatient visit after June 10, 2020 (1-year before universal CGM funding) who were enrolled in the BC Pediatric Diabetes Registry were included (n = 477). The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (quintile 1 = least deprived; quintile 5 = most deprived) was determined using postal code. Mixed effects models were used to describe HbA1c, TIR, and pump use, and an interrupted time series generalized additive model estimated the change in CGM use pre- and postintroduction of universal coverage. Results:No differences were observed among the five levels of deprivation for HbA1c and TIR; however, for residential instability, those with the highest level of deprivation had a lower probability of pump use (−18.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −26.1% to −11.7% for quintile 5 vs. 1). There was an increase in CGM uptake across all levels of deprivation 1-year after introduction of universal CGM funding. For example, the difference in sensor use from the most to least deprived situational group was −21.0% (−35.4%, −6.6%) at the time of universal coverage and shrank to −4.6% (−21.6%, 12.4%) after 12 months of coverage. However, an equity gap in CGM use persisted between the least and most deprived groups (−21.9, 95% CI = −34.5 to −9.4 for quintile 5 vs. 1 in economic dependency). Conclusions:Universal coverage of CGM improved uptake; however, equity gaps persisted. More research is needed to explore nonfinancial barriers to diabetes technology use in marginalized populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Technology & TherapeuticsSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207