Actionable nuggets: knowledge translation tool for the needs of patients with spinal cord injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the results of a pilot study of an innovative methodology for translating best evidence about spinal cord injury (SCI) for family practice. DESIGN: Review of Canadian and international peer-reviewed literature to develop SCI Actionable Nuggets, and a mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation to determine Nuggets' effect on physician knowledge of and attitudes toward patients with SCI, as well as practice accessibility. SETTING: Ontario, Newfoundland, and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-nine primary care physicians. METHODS: Twenty Actionable Nuggets (pertaining to key health issues associated with long-term SCI) were developed. Nugget postcards were mailed weekly for 20 weeks to participating physicians. Prior knowledge of SCI was self-rated by participants; they also completed an online posttest to assess the information they gained from the Nugget postcards. Participants' opinions about practice accessibility and accommodations for patients with SCI, as well as the acceptability and usefulness of Nuggets, were assessed in interviews. MAIN FINDINGS: With Actionable Nuggets, participants' knowledge of the health needs of patients with SCI improved, as knowledge increased from a self-rating of fair (58%) to very good (75%) based on posttest quiz results. The mean overall score for accessibility and accommodations in physicians' practices was 72%. Participants' awareness of the need for screening and disease prevention among this population also increased. The usefulness and acceptability of SCI Nugget postcards were rated as excellent. CONCLUSION: Actionable Nuggets are a knowledge translation tool designed to provide family physicians with concise, practical information about the most prevalent and pressing primary care needs of patients with SCI. This evidence-based resource has been shown to be an excellent fit with information consumption processes in primary care. They were updated and adapted for distribution by the Canadian Medical Association to approximately 50,000 primary care physicians in Canada, in both English and French.
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 | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".