Collaborating with individuals with lived experience to adapt <scp>CANMAT</scp> clinical depression guidelines into a patient treatment guide: The <scp>CHOICE‐D</scp> co‐design process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Effective treatment of depression involves collaboration with informed patients and families and appropriate knowledge sharing. We describe here our experience, as a case example, of a collaboration to "translate" a clinical guideline designed for practitioners into an accessible, plainlanguage version that patients and families can use during the care process, both to provide basic educational information and to foster informed discussions with their treatment providers. Content experts in knowledge translation, patient advocacy, patient-oriented research, and psychiatry guided overall project design. Our first step was to identify lived experience writers to join in the codesign and co-writing of the "CHOICE-D Patient and Family Guide to Depression Treatment." A national call for writers attracted 62 applicants, from whom eight individuals with lived experience of depression and writing experience were selected. Individuals subsequently attended a welcoming teleconference, followed by a 1-day workshop designed to provide (a) a detailed overview of the clinician guideline, (b) an opportunity to select what should be included in the Guide, and (c) key principles of knowledge translation/lay writing. Both from the workshop and subsequently through the codesign process, lived experience writers recommended that the Guide address symptoms, effects of illness course on treatment, first-line treatments, safety/side effects, and treatment misconceptions. To promote patient autonomy, question scripts (how and what to ask your treatment provider), self-triaging resources, and treatment selection aids were suggested. Stylistic considerations included use of simple yet hopeful language, brevity, white space, key terms glossary, and graphics. Several strategies were particularly useful to optimize writer engagement in the codesign process: a pre-workshop conference call and circulation of project resources, an in-person workshop to increase content knowledge, structured discussion with co-writers and project leads to develop ideas, and practical training exercises with the provision of feedback. Both during and at the end of the project, writers provided additional recommendations for improving the process, including more in-person meetings, distribution of step-by-step instructions on the writing task, and a key terms glossary of technical terms to support their role. In conclusion, we describe a process with practical tips and reflective feedback on important considerations for engaging persons with lived experience as leaders in the codesign and writing process of lay treatment guidelines. These methods may serve as a model for similar projects in other areas of healthcare.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».