Acceptability of older patients’ self-assessment in the Emergency Department (ACCEPTED)—a randomised cross-over pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: patient self-assessment using electronic tablet could improve the quality of assessment of older Emergency Department(ED) patients. However, the acceptability of this practice remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: to compare the acceptability of self-assessment using a tablet in the ED to a standard assessment by a research assistant (RA), according to seniors and their caregivers. DESIGN: randomised crossover pilot study. SETTING: The Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus (CHU de Québec-Université Laval) (2018/05-2018/07). SUBJECTS: (1) ED patients aged ≥65, (2) their caregiver, if present. METHODS: participants' frailty, cognitive and functional status were assessed with the Clinical Frailty scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Older American Resources and Services scale and patients self-assessed using a tablet. Test administration order was randomised. The primary outcome, acceptability, was measured using the Treatment Acceptability and Preferences (TAP) scale. Descriptive analyses were performed for sociodemographic variables. TAP scores were adjusted using multivariate linear regression. Thematic content analysis was performed for qualitative data. RESULTS: sixty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 75.5 ± 8.0 and 55.2% were women. Adjusted TAP scores for RA evaluation and patient self-assessment were 2.36 and 2.20, respectively (P = 0.08). Patients aged ≥85 showed a difference between the TAP scores (P < 0.05). Qualitative data indicates that this might be attributed to the use of technology. Data from nine caregivers showed a 2.42 mean TAP score for RA evaluation and 2.44 for self-assessment. CONCLUSIONS: our results show that older patients believe self-assessment in the ED using an electronic tablet as acceptable as a standard evaluation by a research assistant. Patients aged ≥85 find this practice less acceptable.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".