MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170383812 · doi:10.1155/2006/810978

Implementing Practice Guidelines: A Workshop on Guidelines Dissemination and Implementation with a Focus on Asthma and COPD

2006· article· en· W170383812 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Allan B. Becker, Dennis Bowie, Paul Hernandez, Andrew McIvor, Michel Rouleau, Jean Bourbeau, Ian D. Graham, Jo Logan, France Légaré, Thomas F Ward, Robert Cowie, Denis Drouin, Stewart B. Harris, Robyn Tamblyn, Pierre Ernst, Wan C. Tan, Martyn R Partridge, Philippe Godard, Carla Herrerias, John Wilson, Liz Stirling, Emily-Brynn Rozitis, Nancy Garvey, Diane Lougheed, Manon Labrecque, Renata Rea, M.C. Holroyde, Danielle Fagnan, Eileen Dorval, Lisa Pogany, Alan Kaplan, Lisa Cicutto, Mary L Allen, Serge Moraca, J. Mark FitzGerald, Francine Borduas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Saint-SacrementUniversité LavalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityChildren's Hospital of WinnipegInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversité LavalInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du TravailGlaxoSmithKlinePublic Health AgencyCanadian Thoracic SocietySanofiGenentechNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsMedicineCOPDFocus (optics)AsthmaMEDLINEMedical educationFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present supplement summarizes the proceedings of the symposium "Implementing practice guidelines: A workshop on guidelines dissemination and implementation with a focus on asthma and COPD", which took place in Quebec City, Quebec, from April 14 to 16, 2005. This international symposium was a joint initiative of the Laval University Office of Continuing Medical Education (Bureau de la Formation Médicale Continue), the Canadian Thoracic Society and the Canadian Network for Asthma Care, and was supported by many other organizations and by industrial partners. The objectives of this meeting were to examine the optimal implementation of practice guidelines, review current initiatives for the implementation of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines in Canada and in the rest of the world, and develop an optimal strategy for future guideline implementation. An impressive group of scientists, physicians and other health care providers, as well as policy makers and representatives of patients' associations, the pharmaceutical industry, research and health networks, and communications specialists, conveyed their perspectives on how to achieve these goals. This important event provided a unique opportunity for all participants to discuss key issues in improving the care of patients with asthma and COPD. These two diseases are responsible for an enormous human and socioeconomic burden around the world. Many reports have indicated that current evidence-based guidelines are underused by physicians and others, and that there are many barriers to an effective translation of recommendations into day-to-day care. There is therefore a need to develop more effective ways to communicate key information to both caregivers and patients, and to promote appropriate health behaviours. This symposium contributed to the initiation of what could become the "Canadian Asthma and COPD Campaign", aimed at improving care and, hence, the quality of life of those suffering from these diseases. It is hoped that this event will be followed by other meetings that focus on how to improve the transfer of key recommendations from evidence-based guidelines into current care, and how to stimulate research to accomplish this.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0080.017
Research integrity0.0250.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207