P6.074 Tailoring Clinical Knowledge Products For Guidance on Addressing Sexually Transmitted Infections and Blood-Borne Infection (STBBIs) to Meet the Different Needs of Family Medicine Practitioners in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Moving clinical guidelines into practise requires the development of clinical knowledge products to aid family practitioners. A variety of product types and formats may need to be used to suit different needs by career-stage. Methods To evaluate the sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBI) knowledge product needs of practitioners, information was elicited from a convenience sample (N = 207) of family medicine practitioners at a national Canadian family medicine forum in Toronto between November 15 and 17, 2013. Analysis was stratified by years of practise to identify ways to reach different generations of practitioners concerning STI and HIV clinical recommendations. The Fishers exact and chi-square test was used to determine statistical significance. Data was collected on preferences on clinical aids; methods used to update clinical knowledge; and preferred formats of accessing STI guidelines. Results All practitioners expressed preferences for concise clinical aids such as algorithms (64.2%) and abbreviated pocket guides (35.3%), in addition to prompts on electronic medical records (32.9%). On-line training and education were preferred by early-career practitioners (< 5-yrs: 53.3%), compared to their mid-to-late career (≥ 5yrs) counterparts (26.1%; p = 0.004). More mid-to-late-career practitioners preferred classroom style workshops (73.9%) than their early-career counterparts (46.7%; p = 0.004). There were differences (p = 0.04) by years of practise concerning guideline format preferences. Early-career practitioners preferred mobile applications (38.5%) compared to hard-copy materials (17.6%). Mid-to-late-career practitioners appeared to prefer hard-copy materials (31.2%) in addition to mobile applications (37.7%). Conclusions These findings demonstrate generational differences in preferred formats and methods of accessing STI and HIV clinical information; public health programmes may wish to deliver information using different approaches to reach different practitioners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.006 |
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".