MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419368003 · doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2103-6

A survey of primary care patients’ readiness to engage in the de-adoption practices recommended by Choosing Wisely Canada

2016· article· en· W2419368003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionFamily medicinePrimary careHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Strategies such as Choosing Wisely have been established to identify the overuse of interventions considered as low-value. Reduction of low-value practices will require patients to understand why certain interventions are no longer recommended. The objective of this study was to determine whether older adults accept the rationale for and perceive themselves ready to de-adopt annual electrocardiogram testing, imaging for low back pain, the use of antibiotics for sinusitis, the use of sedative-hypnotics for insomnia, and the use of antipsychotics to treat behavioural symptoms of dementia. METHODS: A self-administered iPad survey was distributed to consecutive patients aged 50 years and older, presenting to three primary care outpatient practices in Ontario, Canada. Data from patients who were able and willing to complete the survey while waiting to see their physician were included. The survey queried knowledge, attitudes and behaviours around the targeted low-value interventions, before and after exposure to a Choosing Wisely Canada patient educational brochure on one of these five topics. A subset of patients agreed to participate in a semi-structured interview after their clinic visit. RESULTS: Three-hundred and forty-four patients (mean age 63, range 50-88, 59 % female) read the materials and completed the survey. Forty-eight percent (95 % CI 43-53 %) intended to discuss the information with a healthcare provider. Forty-five percent (95 % CI 40-51 %) expressed a desire to change current low-value practices. Approximately two-thirds of those who indicated they would not change future behaviours explained that it was because they were already espousing the Choosing Wisely values. After reading the Choosing Wisely brochures, knowledge improved independent of age, sex and education in 48 % (95 % CI 38-57 %) of participants about electrocardiogram testing, in 74 % (95 % CI 65-82 %) about use of antipsychotics, in 66 % (95 % CI 52-78 %) about use of antibiotics for sinusitis, in 60 % (95 % CI 46-72 %) about imaging for low back pain, and in 40 % (95 % CI 26-55 %) about sedative-hypnotic use in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of primary care patients seem ready to de-adopt low-value practices. Provision of education in clinic waiting rooms can help improve knowledge around unnecessary care.

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.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.136
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.856
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.237 · 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