MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805255611 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198181

Barriers and enablers to a physician-delivered educational initiative to reduce low-acuity visits to the pediatric emergency department

2018· article· en· W2805255611 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory Huyer, Samia Chreim, Wojtek Michalowski, Ken Farion

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsOvercrowdingMedicineCredibilityPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Emergency departmentNursingFamily medicineMedical educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Use of the pediatric emergency department (PED) for low-acuity health issues is a growing problem, contributing to overcrowding, longer waits and higher health system costs. This study examines an educational initiative aimed at reducing low-acuity PED visits. The initiative, implemented at an academic pediatric hospital, saw PED physicians share a pamphlet with caregivers to educate them about appropriate PED use and alternatives. Despite early impacts, the initiative was not sustained. This study analyzes the barriers and enablers to physician participation in the initiative, and offers strategies to improve implementation and sustainability of similar future initiatives. METHODS: Forty-two PED physicians were invited to participate in a semi-structured individual interview assessing their views about low-acuity visits, their pamphlet use, barriers and enablers to pamphlet use, and the initiative's potential for reducing low-acuity visits. Suggestions were solicited for improving the initiative and reducing low-acuity visits. Constant comparative method was used during analysis. Codes were developed inductively and iteratively, then grouped according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Efforts to ensure study credibility included seeking participant feedback on the findings. RESULTS: Twenty-three PED physicians were interviewed (55%). Barriers and enablers for pamphlet use were identified and grouped according to five of the 14 TDF domains: social/professional role and identity; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; social influences; and emotions. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF provided an effective approach to identify the key elements influencing physician participation in the educational initiative. This information will help inform behavior change interventions to improve the implementation of similar future initiatives that involve physicians as the primary educators of caregivers.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207