MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406230318 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000701

The value of diabetes technology enabled coaching (DTEC) to support remission evaluation of medical interventions in T2D: Patient and health coach perspectives

2025· article· en· W4406230318 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactPopulation Health Research InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth technologyCoachingHealth literacyMedical educationPsychologyOperationalizationNursingMedicineApplied psychologyKnowledge managementHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multicomponent Remission Evaluation of Medical Interventions in T2D (REMIT) program has shown reduction of hazard of diabetes relapse by 34-43%, but could benefit from improved ability to scale, spread, and sustain it. This study explored, at the conceptualization phase, patient and health coach perspectives on the acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and appropriateness of a digital REMIT adaptation (diabetes technology enabled coaching (DTEC)). Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 6) and health coaches (n = 6) to explore their experiences with the REMIT study, opportunities for virtualisation, and a cognitive walkthrough of solution concepts. Transcripts were analyzed both inductively and deductively to allow for organic themes to emerge and to position these themes around the constructs of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and appropriateness while allowing new codes to emerge for discussion. Participants saw value in DTEC as: an opportunity to facilitate and extend REMIT support; a convenient, efficient, and scalable concept (acceptability); having potential to motivate through connecting behaviours to outcomes (adoption); an opportunity for lower-effort demands for sustained use (feasibility). Participants also highlighted important considerations to ensure DTEC could provide compassionate insights and support automated data entry (appropriateness). Several considerations regarding equitable access were raised and warrant further consideration including: provision of technology, training to support technology literacy, and the opportunity for DTEC to support and improve health literacy. As such, DTEC may act as a moderator that can enhance or diminish access which affects who can benefit. Provided equity considerations are addressed, DTEC has the potential to address previous shortcomings of the conventional REMIT program.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.344 · 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