Strengthening community actions to improve diabetes mellitus care optimising public health facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is the second leading cause of death in South Africa, and almost 90,000 people died from diabetes-related causes in the year 2019. This study aimed to investigate facilitators that can be harnessed to strengthen community actions and barriers that should be redressed in structured public health and health promotion programs for people with diabetes mellitus at a primary healthcare level. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted using face-to-face interviews among 20 conveniently sampled participants. The Ottawa Charter was adopted to guide health promotion and strengthening actions for people with diabetes mellitus. This study was conducted at Ngangelizwe Community Health Centre. Ngangelizwe is one of the townships located about 2 km east of Mthatha Town in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The thematic analysis method was used to analyse data with the assistance of Atlas ti, version 23 software. RESULTS: Five overarching themes were yielded and categorized as facilitators and barriers. Facilitators included enhancing the role of community healthcare workers and strengthening health education activities. Barriers included lack of support groups, food insecurity, and unavailability of community health promotion programs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a collaborative health promotion intervention with the necessary competencies should be designed to assess needs and develop, implement, and evaluate relevant empowerment programs at the household and community levels. This approach involves active engagement with health promoters/ public health practitioners and community health workers at the local level, allowing individuals and communities to access motivation and knowledge regarding the control of diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".