MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949561826 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz050.p16-056-19

Assessment of Construct Validity of a Tool to Measure the Quality of Brief Advice for Dietary Sodium Reduction by Health Care Providers (P16-056-19)

2019· article· en· W2949561826 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Jefferson, Amber Armstrong-Izzard, JoAnne Arcand

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdvice (programming)Family medicineIntervention (counseling)Construct validityTest (biology)Randomized controlled trialNursingPatient satisfactionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To test the construct validity of the Sodium Advice Score (SAS). The SAS is a tool developed to measure the quality of brief advice provided by health care providers (HCP) about dietary sodium reduction. The validation of this tool will support its implementation in a behavioural intervention trial. Thirty English speaking patients with a diagnosis of hypertension and no memory impairments were recruited from a primary care clinic in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomized to a high quality dietary sodium advice group or to a low quality dietary sodium advice group. Each intervention was delivered by a registered dietitian and took no longer than 5–7 minutes for high quality advice and 1–2 minutes for low quality advice. After the dietary sodium advice was provided the patient completed the SAS tool (< 5 minutes). Frequency, type and duration of advice was assessed by the SAS tool, which had a maximum score of 16. Therefore, the high quality advice had an expected SAS score of 16. The low quality advice had an expected SAS score of 5. Patients included were 71.3 ± 7.9 years old and 53% were male. Overall, 43% and 47% of patients had received previous counseling from a dietitian and family doctor, respectively. Mean daily sodium intakes of 2593 ± 1403 mg/day and 3040 ± 2283 mg/day were similar between high and low quality advice groups. The mean SAS score was 6.9 ± 3.6 (range: 2 to 14) in the low quality advice group and 14.5 ± 1.5 (range: 10 to 16) in the high quality advice group. The high quality advice scores observed were statistically similar to the expected scores (P = 0.001), however the low advice scores were not. Overall, the low quality advice score was significantly lower than the high quality advice score (P < 0.000). The SAS tool showed evidence of construct validity as it can differentiate between high and low quality sodium reduction advice provided by HCPs. It can be used as a valid tool for measuring quality of brief sodium reduction advice by HCPs in future research. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207