Predictors of Type-2 Diabetes Self-Screening: The Impact of Health Beliefs Model, Knowledge, and Demographics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global health concern, and the intention to undergo diabetes self-screening among patients varies based on demographics and the Health Belief Model (HBM). Objective: This study aimed to identify the factors associated with the intention to engage in DM self-screening. Methods: This study included 404 participants with a 99% response rate. Saudi Arabian residents from the Jazan region, all diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, were enrolled. A validated, Arabic-translated, and structured questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics, family history, chronic disease status, DM knowledge, HBM constructs, and DM screening behavior. The study methods adhered to the STROBE Checklist for clear and reliable reporting. Results: The study found that 24.5% of the participants were in the 35-44 age group and 67.3% were male. Regarding education, 52.2% had university-level education and 79.7% had no family history of DM. Among the participants, 62.1% reported no chronic disease. The mean knowledge score was 6.44 (SD = 2.01). The study revealed that 56.9% of the respondents intended to engage in DM screening. Factors associated with intention included age (65 and over had lower odds), gender (females had slightly higher odds), and education (school qualification had higher odds). Family history and chronic disease status did not significantly affect intention. Among the HBM constructs, higher perceived susceptibility increased the odds, higher perceived severity decreased the odds, and perceived benefits and barriers had no significant associations with intention. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing the intention to engage in DM self-screening among diabetic patients. This understanding can guide targeted interventions to promote DM self-screening and enhance diabetes care outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".