MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Focusing the focus group: impact of the awareness of major factors contributing to non‐adherence to acute paediatric asthma guidelines

2010· article· en· W2126322715 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanjit K. Bhogal, David McGillivray, Jean Bourbeau, Laurie H. Plotnick, Susan J. Bartlett, Andrea Benedetti, Francine M. Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsMedicineFocus groupAsthmaPrioritizationNominal group techniqueEmergency departmentFamily medicineIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: The administration of oral corticosteroids within the first hour in the emergency department is associated with reduced hospitalization rates in children with moderate and severe asthma, yet less than half of patients benefit from this recommendation. To ensure patients receive recommended treatment, a clear understanding of what is causing suboptimal care management is needed. The assessment of barriers and solutions to optimal care is often done without a thorough examination of the factors associated with non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether knowledge of factors associated with delayed administration of systemic corticosteroids modifies the focus and prioritization of barriers and solutions identified by focus groups. METHODS: We conducted two parallel focus groups of emergency health care professionals - one group informed and the other non-informed of key factors. Both groups received a presentation on the acute asthma guidelines, the evidence supporting its recommendations, and current practice. In addition, the informed group was provided with the factors associated and not associated with delayed administration. The groups were given 20 minutes to discuss barriers and solutions, with 5 minutes each for voting for the main barriers and solutions. Group difference in the misdirection of discussion was measured as time spent discussing barriers that were shown not to be associated with systemic corticosteroids. Prioritization of barriers and solutions was based on group endorsement. RESULTS: The non-informed group spent more time discussing barriers not associated with delayed administration (15 vs. 2 minutes, P = 0.05). Although the non-informed group proposed more solutions, most were to overcome barriers not associated with delayed administration. Of the main barriers and solutions identified by each group, only one barrier and solution were similar between the two groups: emergency department overcrowding and administrating corticosteroids at triage. CONCLUSION: The awareness of objective factors of non-adherence enabled a more directed discussion on relevant barriers and solutions, affecting prioritization of each. The administration of oral corticosteroids at triage appears to be the best solution to overcome delayed administration.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207