MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097409372 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-118

Evaluation of the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of two methods of involving patients with disability in developing clinical guidelines: study protocol of a randomized pragmatic pilot trial

2014· article· en· W2097409372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Ève Lamontagne, Kadija Perreault, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)RehabilitationCLARITYIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionPopulationGuidelineClinical trialChecklistPhysical therapyAlternative medicineNursingPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite growing interest in the importance of, and challenges associated with the involvement of patient and population (IPP) in the process of developing and adapting clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), there is a lack of knowledge about the best method to use. This is especially problematic in the field of rehabilitation, where individuals with disabilities might face many barriers to their involvement in the guideline development and adaptation process. The goal of this pilot trial is to document the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of two methods of involving patients with a disability (traumatic brain injury) in CPG development. METHODS/DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized, crossover pragmatic trial will be performed with 20 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). They will be randomized into two groups, and each will try two alternative methods of producing recommendations; a discussion group (control intervention) and a Wiki, a webpage that can be modified by those who have access to it (experimental intervention). The participants will rate the acceptability of the two methods, and feasibility will be assessed using indicators such as the number of participants who accessed and completed the two methods, and the number of support interventions required. Twenty experts, blinded to the method of producing the recommendations, will independently rate the recommendations produced by the participants for clarity, accuracy, appropriateness and usefulness. DISCUSSION: Our trial will allow for the use of optimal IPP methods in a larger project of adapting guidelines for the rehabilitation of individuals with TBI. Ultimately the results will inform the science of CPG development and contribute to the growing knowledge about IPP in rehabilitation settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial KT Canada 87776.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0110.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.703
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.013 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207