Integrating Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine HIV Care and the ANRS CO3 Aquitaine Cohort’s Data Capture and Visualization System (QuAliV): Protocol for a Formative Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective antiretroviral therapy has greatly reduced HIV-related morbidity and mortality, dramatically changing the demographics of the population of people living with HIV. The majority of people living with HIV in France are well cared for insofar as their HIV infection is concerned but remain at risk for age-associated comorbidities. Their long-term, potentially complex, and growing care needs make the routine, longitudinal assessment of health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes of relevance in the current treatment era. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the development of a Web-based electronic patient-reported outcomes system for people living with HIV linked to the ANRS CO3 Aquitaine cohort's data capture and visualization system (ARPEGE) and designed to facilitate the electronic collection of patient-reported data and ultimately promote better patient-physician communication and quality of care (both patient satisfaction and health outcomes). METHODS: Participants who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to engage with the Web-based electronic patient-reported outcomes system and provided with the information necessary to create a personal patient account. They will then be able to access the electronic patient-reported outcomes system and complete a set of standardized validated questionnaires covering health-related quality of life (World Health Organization's Quality of Life Instrument in HIV infection, named WHOQOL-HIV BREF) and other patient-reported outcomes. The information provided via questionnaires will ultimately be presented in a summary format for clinicians, together with the patient's HIV care history. RESULTS: The prototype of the Web-based electronic patient-reported outcome system will be finalized and the first 2 formative research phases of the study (prototyping and usability testing) will be conducted from December 2017 to May 2018. We describe the sequential processes planned to ensure that the proposed electronic patient-reported outcome system is ready for formal pilot testing, referred to herein as phases 1a and 1b. We also describe the planned pilot-testing designed to evaluate the acceptability and use of the system from the patient's perspective (phase 2). CONCLUSIONS: As the underlying information technology solution, ARPEGE, has being developed in-house, should the feasibility study presented here yield promising results, the panel of services provided via the proposed portal could ultimately be expanded and used to experiment with health-promoting interventions in aging people living with HIV in hospital-based care or adapted for use in other patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03296202; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03296202 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zgOBArps). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9439.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".