MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084005651 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.3.93

6 themes described patients’ information needs related to patient controlled analgesia

2003· letter· en· W2084005651 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Coker

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyWeb of scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chumbley GM, Hall GM, Salmon P. Patient-controlled analgesia: what information does the patient want? J Adv Nurs2002 ; 39 : 459 –71 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What information do patients want about patient controlled analgesia (PCA)? Focus groups. Findings were used to revise a patient information leaflet, which was subsequently evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Only the findings of the focus groups are reported here. {St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.}* 24 patients (19–72 y, 54% women) were recruited from 8 surgical wards. All had used PCA during the previous week after major gynaecological, orthopaedic, abdominal, or renal surgery. Exclusion criteria were inability to ambulate, inability to speak or understand English, and unwellness. 7 focus groups were held. Patients were asked, “If you were going to use PCA for the first time, what would you want to know?” They were then asked to recommend changes to the content of a previously used information leaflet. Sessions were transcribed, and a thematic analysis was done. Topics were identified as themes when viewed as important by >1 focus group. The … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DChumbley%26rft.auinit1%253DG.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D39%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D459%26rft.epage%253D471%26rft.atitle%253DPatient-controlled%2Banalgesia%253A%2Bwhat%2Binformation%2Bdoes%2Bthe%2Bpatient%2Bwant%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2002.02311.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12175355%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02311.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12175355&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F93.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177443400015&link_type=ISI

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207