MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethnodrama: An innovative knowledge translation tool in the management of lymphedema.

2015· article· en· W2590047023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shahid Ahmed, Elizabeth Quinlan, Linda M. McMullen, Roanne Thomas, Pam Fichtner, Janice Block

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of OttawaSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphedemaMedicineKnowledge translationFamily medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Breast cancerHealth professionalsMedical educationNursingPhysical therapyHealth careCancerKnowledge managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

102 Background: Lymphedema can cause significant physical impairment and quality-of-life issues. Yet there is a gap in knowledge about lymphedema among breast cancer survivors (BCS), and health care professionals (HCP). Ethnodrama is an innovative knowledge translation strategy that uses theatrical performances for dissemination of research results. We evaluated the impact of live ethnodrama on HCP’ and BCS' awareness and attitudes in relation to impact of lymphedema on BCS’ lives. Methods: Ethnodrama performances were developed by script writers and a theatre director in collaboration with the investigators and BCS using data from published research and pre-performances workshops. The 25- minute performance follows a readers’ theatre model. Six interactive live performances were given to audiences of BCS, HCP, and community members in four cities across Canada. After watching these live performances, the audiences were asked to complete a survey regarding their knowledge, attitudes and practices toward lymphedema. Results: Of 238 survey participants, 55 (23%) were BCS and 85 (37.5%) were HCP. The mean age was 46±15 years & M:F was 1:4.8. Most members rated the performances as very effective in changing their (84%) or other people's (93%) understanding of lymphedema. Only 2.7% of respondents judged the performances as not effective at all in changing their understanding of lymphedema. Following the performances about 87% of respondents (95% HCP vs. 86.2% BCS, p = 0.10) reported being moderately to extremely motivated to seek additional information on lymphedema; 76% BCS reported interest in discussing arm morbidity issues with their HCP & 72% HCP anticipated changes in their practices related to arm morbidities screening. Overall no significant differences were noted in responses to ethnodrama between BCS and HCP. Open-ended responses were supportive of the findings from the closed-ended questions. One of the performances (The New Normal: Living with Lymphedema) is available on https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCewEVF6CcTlEKYlLNcc8FWQ . Conclusions: Our results indicate that ethnodrama performances effectively convey information and positively affecting changes in HCP’ and BCS’ attitudes toward lymphedema.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.465
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207