Primary care insights on the management of diabetes: results from a mixed method study of care changes and impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, primary care manages most diabetes care. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted primary care, reducing access to care and monitoring. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe changes in diabetes monitoring during the first 21 months of the pandemic, patients' experiences with these changes, and impact on HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) control. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase mixed methods study: (i) A retrospective pre-post cohort study using de-identified electronic medical record data to compare HbA1c and BP measurement frequency and results in diabetic patients prepandemic (22 June 2018 to 12 March 2020) and during the pandemic (13 March 2020 to 3 December 2021); (ii) A qualitative descriptive analysis using semistructured interviews to understand patient experiences navigating diabetes care during the pandemic. RESULTS: The cohort included 84 617 patients with validated diabetes case definition. Proportion of patients with <1 HbA1c test increased by 10% during the pandemic. For those with ≥1 test, mean HbA1c remained unchanged [mean (SD) HbA1cPre: 7.2 (1.3); HbA1cDuring: 7.2 (1.3); P = .51]. Proportion of patients with <1 BP measurement increased by 23%. For those with ≥1 measurement, mean BP remained clinically similar [mean (SD) sBPPre: 131.8 (13.7); sBPDuring: 132.9 (15.2); P < .01. Mean dBPPre: 74.9 (8.6); dBPDuring: 75.1 (9.1); P = .63]. Nineteen participants were interviewed, discussing virtual care, challenges with self-monitoring, and self-management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Mean HbA1c and BP values remained clinically stable during the pandemic despite reductions in monitoring frequency, likely due to continuity of care and patient self-management. Future research should evaluate a de-intensified frequency of diabetes monitoring and address care gaps.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".