MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411957526 · doi:10.2196/70406

Assessing the Fit of a Digitally Delivered National Diabetes Prevention Program Among Rural Living Adults: Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4411957526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerit Wagner, Lyndsie Koon, Patricia R. Smith, Kameron Suire, Mary Hastert, J Donnelly, Melissa D. Olfert, Paul A. Estabrooks, Anna M. Gorczyca

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisQualitative researchGerontologyMedicineType 2 diabetesRuralityRural healthPsychologyRural areaMedical educationNursingDiabetes mellitusBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rural living adults are disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes compared to their urban counterparts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is an evidence-based intervention that reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes through increased physical activity and modest weight loss, but overall reach remains limited, specifically in rural communities. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to examine the fit of the National DPP delivered digitally using Zoom or Facebook to rural living adults at risk for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Focus group scripts assessed the characteristics and perceptions of rural adults at risk for type 2 diabetes, infrastructure supports for implementation and sustainability, and external factors that could influence program fit. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted separately on coded transcripts for each focus group. Themes were then deductively linked to the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model domains. RESULTS: Two focus groups were conducted with 14 participants after participating in the National DPP for 6 months, delivered through Zoom (n=9) or Facebook (n=5). Participants highlighted positive relationships between Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model constructs related to participant characteristics (ie, value of health improvements, weight loss, and reduced medication dependence as primary motivators) and perceptions of compatibility (ie, content alignment with participant needs) as well as infrastructure (ie, digital platforms provided better access) with program success in reach and engagement. Conversely, both formats were negatively impacted by interruptions in internet connectivity. External factors, such as referral pathways from local health care providers, could improve program reach. When considering differences between implementation infrastructure, Zoom facilitated greater social engagement and accountability compared to Facebook. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified contextual factors influencing the fit of digitally delivering the National DPP to rural living adults, including opportunities for using existing connections and health motivations to help improve acceptability, while tailoring curriculum, modality, and technology may improve appropriateness for rural populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05387434; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05387434.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.549
GPT teacher head0.756
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→