Managing benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary care. Patient-centred approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is changing from a surgical approach to a medical approach, and the role of primary care physicians is expanding. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To introduce a patient-centred approach to managing BPH in primary care through a continuing medical education (CME) program. MAIN COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: A practice-based, small group, peer-led CME program focused on application of the International Prostate Symptom Score and Quality of Life Assessment in four case studies on prostatism, including BPH. At 86 workshops held across Canada, 658 physicians participated in discussions with case materials that included videos and a handbook. A before-after practice behaviour questionnaire was administered at each workshop to evaluate "intent to change." CONCLUSIONS: Participating physicians showed willingness to learn new skills for patient-centred management of BPH. These results suggest that peer-led, small group CME can successfully encourage use of new practice guidelines in primary are and teach physicians practical steps for developing therapeutic alliances with their patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".