Knowledge of peripheral arterial disease: Results of an intervention to measure and improve PAD knowledge in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has dramatically increased in both developing, as well as developed countries. However, significant knowledge and practice gaps persist. In Canada, efforts to improve this knowledge level are lacking. In this study, we examine PAD knowledge in Toronto, and evaluate a pilot intervention to address the knowledge gaps. Objectives Measure PAD awareness in Toronto, and evaluate an intervention to improve PAD knowledge among the public. Methods In the context of a community-based awareness campaign, an interview-based survey was used to assess the PAD awareness among general public. A sample of participants was split into two arms: control (survey only) and intervention (survey and education pamphlet), the choice between assigning the site as case or control was random. A follow-up telephone and email-based survey was conducted after 6 weeks to assess the attained knowledge level of PAD. Results Two hundred thirty-seven participants completed the baseline survey. One hundred eighty-eight participants (78.7%) had never heard of PAD. The remaining "PAD-aware" cohort had low overall knowledge of the disease characteristics. Participants from each arm completed the follow-up survey. The level of education, age, and gender were not predictors of knowledge scores; however, age was a predictor of PAD awareness, while gender and level of education were not. Participants in the intervention group showed significant knowledge scores improvement in five PAD domains, while those from control group showed significant improvement in their preventative measures, treatment modalities, and total scores. The impact of the study intervention on average scores was borderline not significant ( p = 0.05). Conclusion PAD knowledge gap in the Canadian public is larger than what was previously reported. Educational campaigns are necessary to address this gap and improve the outcome of PAD patients through patients' activation. Our results are encouraging and warrant a next intervention to explore an educational program impact on PAD knowledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".