Enhancing Health Equity and Patient Engagement in Diabetes Care: Technology-Aided Continuous Glucose Monitoring Pilot Implementation Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide service to medically underserved areas and communities, providing care to over 32 million patients annually. The burden of diabetes is increasing, but often, the vulnerable communities served by FQHCs lag in the management of the disease due to limited resources and related social determinants of health. With the increasing adoption of technologies in health care delivery, digital tools for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are being used to improve disease management and increase patient engagement. In this viewpoint, we share insights on the implementation of a CGM program at an FQHC, the Community-University Health Care Center (CUHCC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Our intent is to improve diabetes management through better monitoring of glucose and to ensure that the CGM program enables our organization's overarching digital strategy. Given the resource limitations of our population, we provided Libre Pro devices to uninsured patients through grants to improve health care equity. We used an interdisciplinary approach involving pharmacists, nurses, and clinicians and used hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels as a measure of diabetes management. We assessed the CGM program and noted key aspects to guide future implementation and scalability. We recruited 148 participants with a mean age of 54 years; 39.8% (59/148) self-identified their race as non-White, 9.5% (14/148) self-identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, and one-third (53/148, 35.8%) were uninsured. Participants had diverse language preferences, with Spanish (54/148, 36.5%), English (52/148, 35.1%), Somali (21/148, 14.2%), and other languages (21/148, 14.2%). Their clinical characteristics included an average BMI of 29.91 kg/m2 and a mean baseline HbA1c level of 9.73%. Results indicate that the CGM program reduced HbA1c levels significantly from baseline to first follow-up (P<.001) and second follow-up (P<.001), but no significant difference between the first and second follow-up (P=.94). We share key lessons learned on cultural and language barriers, the digital divide, technical issues, and interoperability needs. These key lessons are generalizable for improving implementation at FQHCs and refining digital strategies for future scalability.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".