Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The standard definition of clinical practice guidelines explicitly states their aim as "to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances". 1 Over the past several years, the goal of allowing patients direct involvement in managing their health care has been pushed to the forefront, with the emphasis on shared decision-making 2 and patient-centered care. 3The old paternalistic model of unassailable physician-directed recommendations is no longer a tenable approach. 4Patients are expected to understand the reasons for and consequences of the procedures they undergo and the care they receive to be able to decide between alternatives when available.Therefore, clinical practice guidelines, especially versions specifically designed for patient understanding, serve a valuable function in providing the information required for this informed decision-making. 5he implications of using guidelines recommendations as a vehicle for shared decision-making between caregiver and patient are both subtle and profound.If the guideline recommendations reflect only the judgments of a set of expert professionals, do they reflect the sum of the factors that should be considered in advancing those recommendations?Although the goal of any experts developing guidelines is to use the best available evidence in deriving recommendations, physicians recognize that the results of even high-powered clinical trials must be subjected to expert evaluation to ensure proper interpretation and that the results are congruent with other values and practical considerations. 6In the Ottawa Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, evidence-based recommendations derived by a panel of experts are sent to a broad range of practitioners for comments about acceptability, with resultant changes in the final guidelines. 7This ensures that the guidelines have received input from the broadest range of professional perspectives.Another inclusiveness dimension of guideline development must be addressed, however.Halpern 8 pointed out that guidelines devised solely by professionals reflect their views as to what is appropriate.In essence, clinicians use their assessment of what outcomes are important for guiding recommendations.However, as mentioned before, we now recognize that using physician values as the driving force in the patient-physician relationship is not optimal for achieving patient-centered care. 9Similarly, nursing professionals must also respect patient autonomy. 10hus, another important and necessary guidelines attribute is clinical flexibility, and a key manifestation of this is the physician-patient team's ability to consider patient preferences while using the recommendations. 11Viewed from the patient's perspective, however, the implications of being asked to decide on guideline recommendations that are completely professionally derived may be troublesome: they are being presented with a restricted list of options, a list the professionals deem appropriate. 8Are they really being given the full panoply of options for their condition?Are there alternatives that they might choose if they knew about them?An interesting example of this is the study by Slevin et al. 12 evaluating the willingness of patients to undergo intensive chemotherapy compared with the 521
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».