Assessment of Users' Needs and Expectations Toward Clinical Practice Guidelines to Support the Rehabilitation of Adults With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stakeholder engagement in clinical practice guideline (CPG) creation is thought to increase relevance of CPGs and facilitate their implementation. The objectives were to survey stakeholders involved in the care of adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) regarding general perceptions of CPGs, key elements to be included, and needs and expectations about format and implementation strategy. SETTINGS: Hospitals and inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation facilities providing services to persons with TBI. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders identified as primary end users of the CPG: clinicians, hospital leaders, health system managers, and funders in Quebec and Ontario (Canada). DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey conducted between May and September 2014. RESULTS: In total, 332 individuals expressed their needs and expectations. Despite positive perceptions of CPGs, only a small proportion of respondents used them. Intensity and frequency of interventions, behaviors disorders and cognitive function impairment, and social participation and community life were important subjects to cover in the CPG. Finally, respondents asked for specific recommendations including a ranking of recommendations based on level of underlying evidence. CONCLUSION: Respondents have important expectations toward a CPG. We anticipate that early and meaningful engagement of end users could facilitate CPG implementation.
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 | 0.041 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".