Considering Values and Contexts in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Are We Becoming More Person-Centred?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become ubiquitous in medicine, created to promote rational and standardized clinical decision-making. CPGs are often criticized for overlooking patient values and contexts, which many argue deserve a more explicit place in recommendations. This article explores the role of patient values and contexts in CPGs based on a critical discourse analysis of Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) Guidelines from 1992-2013. We highlight emerging discourses related to person-centred care in CDA guidelines during this period, which support an increasing emphasis on collaboration and shared decision-making, as well as consideration of patient values and contexts. We discuss possible reasons for this shift and the implications for practitioners. Despite this encouraging trend, our analysis also suggests areas for improvement, particularly concerning the integration of patient preferences in clinical decision making and research.
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 | 0.135 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".