MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764081240 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-156

159: Improving Patient and Family Education in Pediatric Hematology Consultations Through the Use of Printed Educational Materials

2014· article· en· W2764081240 on OpenAlexaff
C Kimber, Richa Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisMedicinePatient educationFamily medicinePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an ever increasing demand for readily available information for patients and their families in the health care system. Access to information should be provided to patients and families by all physicians. There is not currently adequate patient centered information available to all patients nor a validated mechanism for physicians to use to provide their patients with information regarding their diagnosis. To validate a method for developing new patient centered informational handouts designed to improve patient understanding of the disease process and management. A chart review of one physician was done to identify the most common diagnoses in pediatric hematology from December 2011 to May 2012. A literature review view was then conducted to identify diagnoses that already had adequate, patient centered information available. New patient centered informational handouts were generated for each of the most common diagnoses remaining. Existing literature regarding content and structure of informational handouts was identified and incorporated into the new handouts. The handouts were then reviewed and revised by a content expert. The revised handouts were reviewed by 10 patient families using both qualitative and quantitative measurements. These results were used to further revise the handouts. The 10 most common pediatric hematology diseases seen in clinic were identified. The patient families identified four major themes when asked to review the handouts. They found the information useful, although they stressed the importance of giving this information to new patients at the time of diagnosis. They stressed the importance of physician counseling, and not using the handouts to replace counseling. Lastly, the patients liked the handouts because they could take the handouts home and use them as a reference. The handouts scored highly in regards to accuracy and being recommended to other patients and their families. Using the described framework, 10 different patient centered informational handouts have been developed and validated. This strategy outlines a way for physicians and other health care workers to create their own patient centered informational handouts to best fit their needs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207