Healthcare professionals' intentions to use wiki-based reminders to promote best practices in trauma care: a survey protocol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are increasingly using wikis as collaborative tools to create, synthesize, share, and disseminate knowledge in healthcare. Because wikis depend on collaborators to keep content up-to-date, healthcare professionals who use wikis must adopt behaviors that foster this collaboration. This protocol describes the methods we will use to develop and test the metrological qualities of a questionnaire that will assess healthcare professionals' intentions and the determinants of those intentions to use wiki-based reminders that promote best practices in trauma care. METHODS: Using the Theory of Planned Behavior, we will conduct semi-structured interviews of healthcare professionals to identify salient beliefs that may affect their future use of wikis. These beliefs will inform our questionnaire on intended behavior. A test-retest of the survey will verify the questionnaire's stability over time. We will interview 50 healthcare professionals (25 physicians and 25 allied health professionals) working in the emergency departments of three trauma centers in Quebec, Canada. We will analyze the content of the interviews and construct and pilot a questionnaire. We will then test the revised questionnaire with 30 healthcare professionals (15 physicians and 15 allied health professionals) and retest it two weeks later. We will assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire constructs using Cronbach's alpha coefficients and determine their stability with the intra-class correlation (ICC). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study will be the first to develop and test a theory-based survey that measures healthcare professionals' intentions to use a wiki-based intervention. This study will identify professionals' salient beliefs qualitatively and will quantify the psychometric capacities of the questionnaire based on those beliefs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it