052 Tools for Communicating Main Messages Conveyed By Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGS) – Making Patient Resources User Friendly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Background The Alberta Ambassador Guideline Adaptation Programme developed two CPGs on the management of low back pain and headache in primary care. Various guideline companion documents were developed for patients. Objectives To review the process and outcomes of involving patients/public in the development of guideline resource documents. Methods Focus groups of different compositions and using various sampling strategies were called upon: self-selected members from national patient pain association (patient information sheets); members of the public who serve on a standing Lay Committee (patient information sheets, comic book); purposive recruitment by market research company (comic book). Participants answered questions related to the content, format, and presentation of patient resources using different interview methods. Results Discussion themes included wordiness of documents, language accessibility, use of logos, and trustworthiness. Multiple suggestions for improvements that were sensitive to the needs of participants were considered before publication of final products. The comic book was not published. Discussion Even though the focus group procedures varied, there was significant overlap and repetition in the feedback received on the same guideline resources. The patient focus group facilitated by a clinician engaged participants in discussions oriented to clinical issues. The comic book was considered to be a novel communication vehicle by clinicians but not so by public. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Involving a motivated Lay Committee facilitated by someone not directly related to the project seems to be a valuable alternative to other focus groups of patients which may require more effort and resources.
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 | 0.022 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.015 |
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".