MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096753587 · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2008.03.070217

How Long Does It Take to Assess Literacy Skills in Clinical Practice?

2008· article· en· W2096753587 on OpenAlexaff
KATE JOHNSON, B. D. Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineHealth literacyPrimary careStopwatchLiteracyConfidence intervalFamily medicineHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health literacy screening is often not performed in clinical settings. One possible reason is the concern about the time involved in performing such assessments. Our objective was to measure the time required to administer the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) literacy assessment instrument to English-speaking primary care patients. METHODS: The NVS was administered to 78 consecutive English-speaking patients in an outpatient primary care clinic. The length of time to complete the NVS was timed with a stopwatch. RESULTS: The average time to complete the NVS was 2.9 minutes (95% confidence limit, 2.6-3.1 min). CONCLUSION: The NVS is a health literacy screening tool of sufficient brevity to be considered for use in primary care practices.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the American Board of Family MedicineSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207