The Role of Respect and Collaborative Decision Making on Diabetes Care Factors Among Nonpregnant Women of Reproductive Age With Diabetes in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2010-2018) to examine associations between diabetes patients' satisfaction with their provider and ratings of healthcare received, diabetes care self-efficacy, and monitoring adherence among nonpregnant reproductive age women with diabetes. The sample included nonpregnant women of childbearing age (18-45) with diabetes mellitus (n = 767; weighted n = 1.3 million women). The results indicated that patients who reported that their usual care provider always asked/showed respect for medical, traditional, and alternative treatments that the person is happy with had 2.59 times greater odds (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.32-5.10) of giving high ratings of healthcare (8-10) compared to those whose provider did not show respect for treatments. Results also showed that patients who reported they were asked to decide between a choice of treatments had 1.76 greater odds (95% CI:1.03-3.01) of diabetes care monitoring adherence. Findings demonstrate the importance of patient-centered communication experiences in relation to diabetes care monitoring adherence. Implications of the findings for clinical encounters are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".