Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Educational interventions that support the implementation of complex clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require substantial time commitments from participants. We conducted a comparative study to evaluate if a 90-minute workshop would increase compliance with the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care as well as decrease the ordering of tests not the subject of specific recommendations. METHODS: Eighty-seven family physicians from Quebec participated in the study. Group assignment was initially randomized, but, owing to logistic problems, randomization was not maintained. After unannounced visits, 2 standardized patients coded the physicians' performance of 23 items recommended for inclusion in the periodic health examination (10 for men and 13 for women) and 8 items recommended for exclusion (4 for both men and women). The "exposed" physicians were visited within 4 to 6 months after the workshop. The "nonexposed" physicians were visited within 4 to 6 months after consent was obtained but before they attended the workshop. We used linear regression analysis to determine if exposure to the workshop resulted in improved performance. RESULTS: Exposure to the workshop was not associated with a difference in the adjusted mean score for items recommended for inclusion (12.07 for exposed physicians v. 12.35 for those not exposed; maximal and ideal score 23; r = -0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.63 to 1.08). However, workshop exposure was associated with lower adjusted mean scores for items recommended for exclusion (1.55 v. 3.17; maximal score 8, ideal score 0; r = -1.63; 95% CI = -2.50 to -0.75) and for other tests (3.59 v. 6.53; r = -2.95; 95% CI = -5.10 to -0.79). INTERPRETATION: A short workshop can decrease the ordering of unnecessary screening tests by family physicians. Given its low cost and its potential for general application, such an intervention can support the implementation of prevention CPGs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".