028 What lay methods of disseminating arthritis research are considered most useful by people with arthritis? A patient and public involvement project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In healthcare, research dissemination is largely focused towards professional audiences. However, disseminating research in accessible, lay terms can be instrumental in supporting effective self-management for people living with arthritis. People who are well-informed and understand their arthritis disease are likely to be more motivated and adhere to treatment than people who are not. This ultimately could impact on more efficient use of NHS services. The objective of this study was to work with patients and public to explore and evaluate which lay methods of disseminating arthritis research are considered the most useful by people living with arthritis in order to inform lay dissemination policies for future arthritis research. Methods: Patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors with self-reported arthritis were recruited via the Wessex Public Involvement Network. Relevant questions to include in the focus group discussion had been approved with our team PPI partner. Two focus group discussions and one 1:1 discussion were carried out with our PPI contributors. The discussion groups took place within the local community at a retail shopping outlet and community cafe. The key points from the group discussion were noted down at the time by researchers, reflected back to the group for agreement and notes compiled. At the end of discussion, the contributors were asked to write down their 3 personal priorities in relation to disseminating arthritis research. The points were then grouped into themes to report key findings. Results: Four female and three male PPI representatives (mean age =66 years SD10) contributed to the discussions. The following key themes were identified as useful when disseminating arthritis research: 1. The accessibility of the research: this needed to be expressed simply and clearly, too much information was frightening; 2 The trustworthiness of the source: people wanted to be able to trust the source of the research message and, 3. Self-management information: the most popular area that PPI representatives wanted to hear about was self-management techniques. 4. Timeliness of research dissemination: regular updates every 3 months was felt to be optimal and especially at the start of their joint pain to help people feel more supported. Conclusion: Our PPI representatives suggest that learning about arthritis research in an accessible manner on a regular basis would help people engage with self-management and to take actions in order to reduce the impact of their arthritis and/or joint pain. Overall, simple and easily accessible methods of disseminating research should be considered for all patient relevant arthritis research. Our PPI project could have been further enhanced by including some harder to reach patient groups and also incorporating healthcare professionals’ views on efficient ways of disseminating research to people living with arthritis. Disclosures: P. Bieluczyk: None. K. Inouye: None. C. Ballinger: None. J. Lawson: None. J. Adams: None.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".