MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Content, Accuracy and Quality of Warfarin Patient Information.

2006· article· en· W2590281602 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Geerts, Artemis Diamantouros, Bill Bartle, Linda Kim, Rita Selby

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarfarinFact sheetMedicinePharmacyReading (process)Scale (ratio)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceMedical physicsFamily medicineInternal medicineWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Warfarin is a very common, narrow therapeutic index drug which requires clear understanding by patients in order to ensure its safe use. Patients are largely educated about warfarin through written information sheets provided by pharmacies. It is critical that these sheets provide all of the essential information about warfarin use in a format that is accurate and understandable. Objective: The goals of this study were to assess the content and accuracy of warfarin information sheets provided to patients by community pharmacies as well as to assess the reading level of each information sheet. Methods: A reference standard for warfarin patient information was developed, based on a formal survey of a national group of thrombosis health professionals. Warfarin patient information sheets, distributed by community pharmacies, were compared to the reference standard. Reading level was assessed using two standardized instruments, the Flesch-Kincaid scale and SMOG scale, and compared to the recommended Grade 5 to 6 level for patient information sheets. Patient information booklets, distributed by the producers of warfarin, were also evaluated. Results: Six different warfarin patient information sheets were distributed by 98% of the community pharmacies in Ontario. On average, these sheets included only 44% of the recommended essential or important knowledge items (range 20–52%), with considerable variability in the content of specific items. Each sheet also contained incorrect information. The average reading level of the information sheets was Grade 11 (range Grade 7 to above Grade 12). On average, the pharmaceutical booklets included 71% of the essential or important information items (range 58–84%). Conclusions: Patients prescribed warfarin are likely to receive information sheets from a community pharmacy that contain less than half of the information content important to their safe use of warfarin as well as statements that are misleading or incorrect. Furthermore, comprehension of these sheets is limited by a reading level substantially higher than recommended. All six of the information sheets reviewed were derived from an American drug information database and therefore, generalized applicability of these results exists. The information that patients receive about warfarin must be improved and we suggest that a national standard be used.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→