MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912843875 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1526337

Making a new-patient headache education session more patient-centered: what participants want to know

2019· article· en· W2912843875 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allison McLean, Werner J. Becker, Zorana Vujadinovic

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsSession (web analytics)FeelingPatient educationThematic analysisMedicineMigraineMedical educationPsychologyPhysical therapyFamily medicineQualitative researchPsychiatryComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To describe the new-patient Education Session provided by the Calgary Headache Assessment and Management Program, analyze patient evaluations, and generate potential patient-centered improvements based on themes in patient feedback.Materials and Methods: Between 2008 and 2012, 1873 new patients attended the Education Session, and 913 evaluations were completed. Session objectives ratings were analyzed. Open-ended questions regarding most- and least-helpful components and suggestions for improvement were examined using thematic analysis.Results: Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated they would recommend the session to others with headache. Median objectives ratings ranged from 9.0–10.0 out of 10 and were stable over time. Most-helpful themes included medication, types of headache, our program’s multi-faceted management approach, medication overuse, triggers, and not feeling alone. Most respondents left the least-useful and suggestions sections blank or commented “nothing” or “not applicable”. Least-useful themes included migraine overemphasis, insufficient or excessive medication content, participant over-disclosure, and lack of practical trigger management strategies.Conclusion: Most attendees found the Education Session useful. Those who did not provided valuable input that will allow us to modify the content. Our findings may benefit other headache programs seeking to implement or improve patient education programing. Implications for RehabilitationHeadache is a common and debilitating condition.Education is an important part of headache treatment, and has been associated with decreases in headache frequency, intensity, and disability, as well as increases in self-efficacy.A new-patient Education Session is a practical and inexpensive way to provide evidence-based medical and behavioral headache information.Quantitative and qualitative analysis of patient evaluations can help gauge relevance and direct content changes.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207