Effects of a E-Coach program on the knowledge, attitude, practice of patients with initial insulin injection: Quasi-experimental study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current level of insulin knowledge, attitudes, and practices of patients self-administering their first insulin injection needs to be improved. There is an emerging need to develop a program for patients self-administering their first insulin injection based on the e-coach model derived from the temporal self-regulation theory. Objective: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a temporal self-regulation theory-based e-coach program on the knowledge, attitude, and practice of patients self-administering their first insulin injection. Methods: A quasi-experimental research design was used, and the study adhered to the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs statement. The study was developed and evaluated in a level IIIA hospital between May 1 and December 1, 2022, in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China. The control group received care as usual. The intervention group received a self-regulation program called the e-coach program: the "COACHING" implementation steps. The insulin attitude scores and insulin knowledge-practice scores were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. In particular, given that baseline blood glucose monitoring frequency differed significantly between the 2 groups, thereby compromising their comparability, a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with monitoring frequency entered as a covariate. This approach was adopted to enhance the scientific rigor of the findings and reduce potential bias. Results: In total, 86 patients were enrolled; of these, 75 patients were followed up, 40 in the experimental group and 35 in the control group. Repeated-measures ANOVA results revealed statistically significant between-group effects (F1,73=47.67, P<.001), time effects (F2,146=5.02, P=.02), and interaction effects (F2,146=4.75, P=.03) for total insulin knowledge scores in both groups. In both groups, statistically significant between-group effects (F1,73=16.04, P<.001) and interaction effects (F2,146=12.52, P<.001) were observed for total insulin attitude scores, but time effects (F2,146=2.47, P=.11) were not statistically significant. In both groups, statistically significant between-group effects (F1,73=0.66, P=.004) were observed for total insulin practice scores, but time effects (F2,146=1.05, P=.35) and interaction effects (F2,146=2.82, P=.08) were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The e-coach program based on the TST was effective in improving insulin knowledge and insulin attitude but was not proven effective for insulin practice. A longer follow-up study is needed to uncover its long-term benefits on clinical 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".