MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using the experience-based design (EBD) approach to strengthen patients’ impact.

2014· article· en· W2589161095 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley Moody, Kate Bak, Simron Jit Singh, Laura MacDougall, Esther Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneMedicineAgency (philosophy)Health careResource (disambiguation)Medical educationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

69 Background: The Experience Based Design (EBD) approach uses patient and clinician experiences to identify opportunities for improvement in the healthcare system. The EBD approach elicits subjective and personal patient, carer, and staff experiences at crucial points in the care pathway by encouraging them to share their stories. Methods: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), an agency that oversees cancer services in Ontario, held an EBD workshop with the objectives of capacity building and facilitating healthcare improvements throughout the province. 110 participants (27 teams) from across Ontario attended the workshop to engage participants to take an active role in developing actionable plans to address patient experience issues. An evaluation following two years of EBD was necessary to: (a) determine EBD progress and effectiveness; (b) identify successes/challenges for getting projects off the ground; and (c) identify additional resources required to spread EBD across Ontario. The evaluation consisted of: 1) two province-wide electronic surveys (long survey for those directly involved in EBD projects; short survey for frontline staff) and 2) semi-structured phone interviews with patients/caregivers. Results: Some EBD projects have completed multiple initiatives; others are just beginning. Projects address process improvement (e.g., streamlining patient bookings), resource/tool development (e.g., symptom screening tools) and establishing patient advisory boards and committees. Five (28%) survey respondents said that EBD projects elicited implementation of 6 to 10 changes and 6 (38%) respondents indicated that: (1) respect for patient preferences and (2) communication, information and education were two principles of Person-Centred Care (PCC) that improved the most. Conclusions: Future steps include development of a collaborative website, a symposium to showcase projects, an evaluation of the EBD initiative and peer-reviewed publication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.712
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.088 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207