MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973093628 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027803

Agreement on the use of sensory screening techniques by nurses for older adults with cognitive impairment in long-term care: a mixed-methods consensus approach

2019· article· en· W2973093628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Walter Wittich, Jonathan Jarry, Fiona Höbler, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéAlzheimer Society Research ProgramAlzheimer Society
KeywordsMedicineRanking (information retrieval)Test (biology)MEDLINECognitionApplied psychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Based on two scoping reviews and two environmental scans, this study aimed at reaching consensus on the most suitable sensory screening tools for use by nurses working in long-term care homes, for the purpose of developing and validating a toolkit. Setting A mixed-methods consensus study was conducted through two rounds of virtual electronic suitability rankings, followed by one online discussion group to resolve remaining disagreements. Participants A 12-member convenience panel of specialists from three countries with expertise in sensory and cognitive ageing provided the ranking data, of whom four participated in the online discussion. Outcome measures As part of a larger mixed-methods project, the consensus was used to rank 22 vision and 20 hearing screening tests for suitability, based on 10 categories from the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire. Panellists were asked to score each test by category, and their responses were converted to z-scores, pooled and ranked. Outliers in assessment distribution were then returned to the individual team members to adjust scoring towards consensus. Results In order of ranking, the top 4 vision screening tests were hand motion , counting fingers , confrontation visual fields and the HOT-V chart , whereas the top 4 hearing screening tests were the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly , the Whisper Test , the Measure of Severity of Hearing Loss and the Hyperacusis Questionnaire , respectively. Conclusions The final selection of vision screening tests relied on observable visual behaviours, such as visibility of tasks within the central or peripheral visual field, whereas three of the four hearing tests relied on subjective report. Next, feasibility will be tested by nurses using these tools in a long-term care setting with persons with various levels of cognitive impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.536
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.540
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5360.540
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0200.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0080.016
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207