MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014414777 · doi:10.1097/jac.0b013e31822cbd7c

Feasibility of Chronic Disease Patient Navigation in an Urban Primary Care Practice

2012· article· en· W2014414777 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy A. Battaglia, Lois McCloskey, Sarah E. Caron, Samantha S. Murrell, Edward Bernstein, Ariel Childs, H.E. Zwikker-de Jong, Kelly Walker, Judith Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ambulatory Care Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careMammographyScheduleMotivational interviewingInterviewPatient satisfactionFamily medicineDiseasePhysical therapyNursingBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating chronic disease navigation using lay health care workers trained in motivational interviewing (MI) into an existing mammography navigation program. Primary-care patient navigators implemented MI-based telephone conversations around mammography, smoking, depression, and obesity. We conducted a small-scale demonstration, using mixed methods to assess patient outcomes and provider satisfaction. One hundred nine patients participated. Ninety-four percent scheduled and 73% completed a mammography appointment. Seventy-one percent agreed to schedule a primary care appointment and 54% completed that appointment. Patients and providers responded positively. Incorporating telephone-based chronic disease navigation supported by MI into existing disease-specific navigation is efficacious and acceptable to those enrolled.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ambulatory Care ManagementSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207