MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758761544 · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0538-x

Factors influencing the development of primary care data collection projects from electronic health records: a systematic review of the literature

2017· review· en· W2758761544 on OpenAlex
Marie-Line Gentil, Marc Cuggia, Laure Fiquet, Camille Hagenbourger, Thomas Le Berre, Agnès Banâtre, Éric Renault, Guillaume Bouzillé, Anthony Chapron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsData collectionData extractionHealth informaticsHealth careGrey literatureSystematic reviewIncentiveMedicineBusinessKnowledge managementMEDLINENursingComputer sciencePublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary care data gathered from Electronic Health Records are of the utmost interest considering the essential role of general practitioners (GPs) as coordinators of patient care. These data represent the synthesis of the patient history and also give a comprehensive picture of the population health status. Nevertheless, discrepancies between countries exist concerning routine data collection projects. Therefore, we wanted to identify elements that influence the development and durability of such projects. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed database to identify worldwide current primary care data collection projects. The gray literature was also searched via official project websites and their contact person was emailed to obtain information on the project managers. Data were retrieved from the included studies using a standardized form, screening four aspects: projects features, technological infrastructure, GPs' roles, data collection network organization. RESULTS: The literature search allowed identifying 36 routine data collection networks, mostly in English-speaking countries: CPRD and THIN in the United Kingdom, the Veterans Health Administration project in the United States, EMRALD and CPCSSN in Canada. These projects had in common the use of technical facilities that range from extraction tools to comprehensive computing platforms. Moreover, GPs initiated the extraction process and benefited from incentives for their participation. Finally, analysis of the literature data highlighted that governmental services, academic institutions, including departments of general practice, and software companies, are pivotal for the promotion and durability of primary care data collection projects. CONCLUSION: Solid technical facilities and strong academic and governmental support are required for promoting and supporting long-term and wide-range primary care data collection projects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.227 · 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