Design features of a guideline implementation tool designed to increase awareness of a clinical practice guide to HIV rehabilitation: A qualitative process evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive electronic guide (e-module) describing an interprofessional, evidence-informed approach to HIV rehabilitation was developed as an education resource for rehabilitation professionals. We developed a guideline implementation tool, consisting of a 10-week, case-based education intervention delivered by email, that was perceived to increase rehabilitation professionals' (occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and speech language pathologists (SLPs)) knowledge and confidence to apply best practices in HIV rehabilitation. This study aimed to increase understanding of how the design of the guideline implementation tool facilitated increased awareness of and access to the e-module among rehabilitation professionals. METHODS: We conducted a single group intervention study with rehabilitation professionals in Canada and the United Kingdom. Six case studies targeting HIV pathophysiology and associated conditions, an interprofessional approach to rehabilitation assessment and treatment, and psychosocial issues experienced by people living with HIV, were emailed to participants at 2-week intervals. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted post-intervention. Interview transcripts were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six individuals (17 from Canada, and 9 from the UK; 16 PTs, 7 OTs, 3 SLPs) were interviewed. One main theme related to design features of the intervention that facilitated learning and access to the e-module emerged. Subthemes highlighted features of the case-based intervention, including technical feasibility, terminology, formatting and layout, hyperlinks, number and frequency of case studies, and diverse and realistic case scenarios relevant to the learner's practice, that participants described as facilitating access to information and learning. CONCLUSION: Electronically administered case studies were perceived as complementary knowledge tools that increased access to an evidence-informed guide to HIV rehabilitation. Findings provide guidance on using case studies as a guideline implementation tool to facilitate access to information and related resources to optimize learning.
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 | 0.090 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".