Using a Prompt Sheet to Improve the Reference Interview in a Health Telephone Helpline Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective - The study examined whether a prompt sheet improved the reference interview process for health information advisers working at NHS Direct, a 24 hour telephone helpline that provides confidential health care advice for the public in England. Method - A randomised control trial was conducted at eight NHS Direct sites across England in 2003-04. Newly recruited health information advisers (n=30), full and part-time, were randomly allocated to a control group (n=15) or intervention group (n=15), and 26 completed the study. Existing health information advisers were involved in the planning and design of the intervention. The prompt sheet included prompts for demographic information, reason for call, condition/treatment plan, existing knowledge of caller, special needs of the caller, handling a call empathetically, conclusion. Testing of reference interview expertise was done at the end of basic training, and two months later, using the same ten test questions, that were based on common questions received by NHS Direct. A relevance framework for possible responses was drawn up for each question for scoring test responses, with more relevant responses scoring higher than less relevant responses. Results - The average score of prompt (experimental) and non-prompt (control) participants increased on the second test, for each of the 10 questions. The prompt group improved significantly more overall than the control group. There was variation within the groups. Sixteen health information assistants showed a net increase in their score over all ten questions (10 experimental group, six control group). The post-test score for an individual on a particular question did sometimes decrease from the pre-test score, but all 26 improved on at least one question. Previous call handler experience did not appear to influence the extent of improvement, but length and type of experience in the post may have an influence. Conclusion - The trial demonstrated the benefit of a simple and inexpensive prompt sheet for some, though not all, newly recruited health information advisers to improve their reference interview technique.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".