Implementation of Telenursing on The Behavior of Type 2 Diabetic Foot Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes is one of the health emergencies that require serious treatment. Diabetic foot complications have an impact on the quality of life and have the potential to threaten the lives of sufferers. Telenursing intervention programs have a lot of influence in improving health. However, there has been no research that proves that this method can have a positive impact on foot care behavior. The purpose of this study was to analyze the implementation of telenursing on foot care behavior. The research design used pre-experimental, with a one group pre-test - post-test design. 23 samples were obtained through purposive sampling techniques. The instrument used was Foot Self-Care (DFSQ-UMA). Data normality test using Shapiro - Wilk, and paired sample t-test. The results of the statistical test showed a p-value of 0.001 (p <0.05), which means that telenursing interventions are effective in improving foot care behavior. Telenursing programs need to be implemented in communities and various health facilities by involving families as an innovative solution for foot care education for diabetes mellitus patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".