Content comparison of guideline-recommended instruments used in treatment for alcohol use disorders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Practice guidelines recommend the use of standardized instruments in the treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs); however, the extent to which these instruments assess patients’ functioning is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the domains of functioning and contextual factors contained in guideline-recommended instruments, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a reference. Materials and methods: We identified instruments by reviewing AUD treatment guidelines used in Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. We included instruments which were available in English free of charge, we excluded instruments developed solely for diagnostic or epidemiological purposes and those for children or adolescents. Following a standardized set of rules, two health care researchers identified the concepts contained in the items on the instruments and independently linked them to ICF categories. Results: A total of 10 instruments were included. Among 517 items, 752 meaningful concepts (MCs) were derived, and 622 of them were linked to the ICF. Inter-rater agreement was κ = 0.61. One hundred eighty eight MCs referred to personal factors, 175 to body functions, 168 to activity and participation, and 91 to environmental factors. The most frequently linked ICF chapter was b1 (mental functions). Conclusions: Instruments recommended in AUD treatment guidelines vary considerably in their assessment of patients’ functioning and contextual factors. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. ICF linkage provides guidance for clinicians and researchers in the selection of appropriate instruments.Implications for rehabilitationSince instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context.Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments.Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed. Since instruments that are recommended in alcohol treatment guidelines vary considerably in respect the functioning domains and context factors they cover, it may be challenging for clinicians to select instruments relevant to their treatment context. Using the ICF as framework, our results provide guidance for clinicians in how to select appropriate instruments. Within the investigated instruments, environmental factors and activities and participation are under-represented in comparison to body functions and personal factors. Clinicians may employ AUD-unspecific or ICF-based instruments to cover these components if needed.
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 | 0,036 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 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 ».