MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167483905 · doi:10.1177/1054773814522829

A Systematic Review of Web-Based Educational Interventions

2014· review· en· W2167483905 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Fredericks, Géraldine Martorella, Cristina Catallo

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Patient educationWeb applicationMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEMedical educationPsychologyNursingWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A complement to in-hospital educational interventions is web-based patient education accessed during the home recovery period. While findings demonstrate the effectiveness of web-based patient education interventions on patient outcomes, they fall short of identifying the characteristics that are associated with desired outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the characteristics of web-based patient education interventions that are associated with producing changes in self-care behaviors. A systematic review involving 19 studies was conducted to determine the most effective components of a web-based intervention. Findings suggest that the most effective form of web-based patient education is one that is interactive and allows patients to navigate the online system on their own. The findings from this systematic review allow for the design of a web-based educational intervention that will promote increased performance of self-care behaviors during the home recovery period.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.713
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nursing ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207