Patient perspectives on transitioning to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis multidisciplinary clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary clinics (MDC) have become the standard of care for management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). No studies however, have captured patients' perspectives during a transition to ALS MDCs. Recently, an ALS MDC emerged from a single-physician clinic in Saskatoon, Canada, providing patients with a unique exposure to two different models of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with ALS participated in semi-structured interviews that were digitally recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers performed an inductive thematic analysis. Information was coded based on emerging and a priori themes. An iterative process followed involving discussion and reexamination of the themes until consensus was reached. RESULTS: All patients cited the convenience of integrated care as an advantage. Other advantages included clinical expertise and advocacy potential. Travel and reduced mobility were the most commonly discussed barriers/disadvantages of MDC attendance. The impact of geography and weather appeared to augment both the appreciation of an integrated approach and the impediment of travel, compared to the existing literature. The need for individualized care was demonstrated by the conflicting viewpoints obtained from participants. Most patients felt additional practitioners and supports for both patients and caregivers were required. CONCLUSION: ALS patients transitioned to MDCs reported many of the advantages and disadvantages reported elsewhere. A novel perspective of a MDC's advocacy potential was recognized, and the need for an innovative approach to meet demands for individualized care was highlighted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".