MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271273894 · doi:10.1155/2009/368010

Workshops to Disseminate the Canadian Thoracic Society Guidelines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease to Health Care Professionals in Ontario: Impact on Knowledge, Perceived Health Care Practices and Participant Satisfaction

2009· article· en· W2271273894 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dilshad Moosa, Maria Blouin, Kylie Hill, Roger Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare CentreUniversity of TorontoCanadian Lung Association
FundersLung Health FoundationGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary diseaseHealth careDisseminationHealth professionalsNursingFamily medicineMEDLINEPatient satisfactionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) regarding the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Implementation of this CPG in the primary care setting requires an effective dissemination strategy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the change in knowledge, participant satisfaction and perceived changes in clinical practice among health care professionals working in the primary care setting following attendance at a workshop to disseminate the CTS CPG for COPD. METHODS: A 2.5 h workshop was conducted in three community health sites within Ontario. Each workshop comprised a didactic presentation and interactive case study discussions. Before, and one month following the workshop, a structured knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered. A structured satisfaction questionnaire and evaluative form that examined the impact of the workshop on the clinical management of COPD patients were administered immediately and three months following completion of the workshop, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-nine participants attended the workshop. The mean score for the structured knowledge assessment questionnaire increased from 8.5+/-2.7 to 10.6+/-2.0 following the workshop (P=0.008). Eighty-nine per cent and 96% of participants indicated that they would recommend the workshop to a colleague and had greater confidence in their management of COPD patients, respectively. Following attendance of the workshop, 73%, 69% and 46% described increased patient education, patient monitoring and the use of objective testing in clinical practice, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Workshop attendance was associated with high levels of satisfaction and important self-reported changes in clinical practice, which may reflect improved knowledge of the CTS CPG for COPD.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207