Delineating and Operationalizing the Definition of Patient-Oriented Research: A Modified e-Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The importance of patient-oriented research (POR) has been recognized by the scientific community and governmental agencies, and its development is exponential across most health-related disciplines. The current Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) definition of POR is overly broad and hinders the reliable selection of POR-related publications from bibliographic databases. The present study was aimed to adapt CIHR's definition of POR into an operational definition that can be used by stakeholders for selecting POR publications. METHODS: Eighteen POR experts in Québec, Canada, were invited to participate in a modified e-Delphi study. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were undertaken to reach consensus. Round-1 sought consensus on clarity and indispensability of POR characteristics. Round-2 included modifications planned in POR characteristics and obtained final consensus leading to an adapted POR definition. Finally, POR experts across Canada were consulted to assess generalizability of this adapted POR definition. RESULTS: The item that achieved 75% of consensus was removal of the POR characteristic "POR can be conducted in partnership with relevant stakeholders," because it was considered redundant and confusing. Additionally, participants suggested defining unclear concepts such as "continuum," "direct impact," and "patient." Finally, based on results of Round-1 and Round-2 and the consultation with POR experts across Canada, an operational POR definition was developed. CONCLUSIONS: This study was a novel attempt to adapt an operational POR definition to help patients and POR stakeholders have a common understanding of what POR is, focus on important outcomes that matter to patients, and improve care quality.
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 | 0.188 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".