Enhanced fidelity of an educational intervention on skin self-examination through surveillance and standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma can metastasize but is often successfully treated when discovered in an early stage. Melanoma patients and their skin check partners can learn skin self-examination (SSE) skills and these skills can be improved by practice. The purpose of this study is to determine the degree of fidelity with which educational in-person SSE intervention can be delivered by trained research coordinators to patients at risk of developing another melanoma and their skin check partners. METHODS: The in-person intervention was performed in two iterations. In phase 1 (2006-2008), the research coordinators were trained to perform the intervention using a written script. In phase 2 (2011-2013), the research coordinators were trained to perform the intervention with a PowerPoint aid. Each research coordinator was individually counseled by one of the authors (KM) to insure standardization and enhance fidelity of intervention delivery. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were compared on 16 fidelity components. Further, Phase 2 fidelity was assessed by comparing mean scores of fidelity across the five research coordinators who delivered the intervention. RESULTS: < .001. Further, no significant differences on mean fidelity were found across research coordinators in Phase 2. DISCUSSION: When using the PowerPoint aide, the research coordinators delivered the intervention with high fidelity (all scores >14) and there were no mean differences in fidelity across research coordinators, indicating consistency in fidelity. This can be attributed to the standardization and cueing that the PowerPoint program offered. Supervision was also a key component in establishing and maintaining fidelity of the patient educational process. This method of intervention delivery enables trained healthcare professionals to deliver an educational intervention in an effective, consistent manner.
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 | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".