MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951134706 · doi:10.1080/13561820.2019.1623764

Enhancing interprofessionalism in shared decision-making training within homecare settings: a short report

2019· article· en· W2951134706 on OpenAlexafffund
Maman Joyce Dogba, Matthew Menear, Nathalie Brière, Adriana Freitas, Julie Emond, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleOttawa HospitalCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Frailty NetworkMinistère de la SantéGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHealth careTraining (meteorology)Health professionalsMedical educationDecision aidsMedicinePsychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training in shared decision-making (SDM) often focuses solely on dyadic relationships between one healthcare provider and one patient. However, many healthcare decisions often involve two or more health professionals. These decisions warrant utilizing an interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) approach which enables patients and their caregivers to face difficult decisions around care together. Most existing SDM training programs fall short when building interprofessional (IP) competencies and require an approach that integrates IP with SDM. This short report discusses the creation and trial implementation of three enhanced education tools (a video, role-play exercise with decision aid, and an IP observation aid) for an IP-SDM workshop focused on helping homecare teams collaborate with seniors and their caregivers throughout the decision-making process. We developed and implemented these tools in eight study sites of a larger randomized control trial to test the training workshop for homecare teams. The workshop and tools helped participants overcome interprofessional challenges in their work. Participants evaluated the tools and workshop, which offered guidance to better translate teachable IP collaboration competencies within SDM.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207