MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340099305

Daily Targeted Evidence Reports for Orthopaedic Surgeons: A Mixed Methods Study in India

2016· article· en· W2340099305 on OpenAlexaff
Sunita Kheterpal

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)IncentiveEvidence-based medicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Medical educationFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is limited research on how web-based, point-of-care, evidence-based medicine (EBM) tools, such as evidence summaries, are being implemented and used in developing countries. Objectives: To investigate accessibility, use, and impact of an online EBM knowledge dissemination portal in orthopaedic surgery. To explore whether receiving daily targeted evidence summaries results in more frequent use of an EBM tool compared with receiving general weekly reports. To identify and explain the barriers and benefits of a point-of-care resource in the Indian context. Methods: Forty-four orthopaedic surgeons in Pune, India, were provided free access to OrthoEvidence (OE), a for-profit, online EBM knowledge dissemination portal. Participants were subsequently randomized to an Intervention group receiving daily targeted evidence summaries or a Control group receiving general weekly summaries. This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design that incorporated two questionnaires, OE usage data, and semi-structured interviews to gain insight into the surgeons’ usage, perceptions and impact of OE. Results: There were no observable differences in OE usage between the Intervention and Control groups. OE was deemed to be comprehensive, practical, useful, and applicable to clinical practice by the majority of surgeons. The exit survey data revealed no differences between groups’ perceptions of the OE tool. Semi-structured interviews revealed barriers to keeping up with evidence that included limited access to relevant medical literature (limited internet connection, lack of time, minimal access to medical journals) and limited incentive to keep up with it (limited decision-making powers for residents, textbook-based residency curriculum, lack of research methods knowledge, limited context-specific research). Changing trauma practices at the hospital were noted following the intervention. Recommendations: The practice of EBM and the use of point-of-care tools in India can be promoted by investing in adequate electronic infrastructure (improvements to internet access) and by integrating EBM into training programs and surgical cultures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207