MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990731387 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032028

Support Needs Approach for Patients (SNAP) tool: a validation study

2019· article· en· W2990731387 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carole Gardener, Gail Ewing, Sílvia Mendonça, Morag Farquhar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMarie CurieMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineContent validityFace validityHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxietyQuality of life (healthcare)Criterion validityScale (ratio)COPDFocus groupConstruct validityFamily medicinePhysical therapyPsychometricsNursingClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Patient-identified need is key to delivering holistic, supportive, person-centred care, but we lack tools enabling patients to express what they need to manage life with a long-term condition. The Support Needs Approach for Patients (SNAP) tool was developed to enable patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) identify and express their unmet support needs to healthcare professionals (HCPs), but its validity is unknown. This study aimed to establish face, content and criterion validity of the SNAP tool. DESIGN: Two-stage mixed-methods study involving patients with advanced COPD and their carers. Stage 1: Face and content validity assessed though focus groups involving patients and carers considering appropriateness, relevance and completeness of the SNAP tool. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Stage 2: Content and criterion validity assessed in a postal survey through patient self-completion of the SNAP tool and disease impact measures (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Content validity assessed using summary statistics; criterion validity via correlations between tool items and impact measures. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and forty patients and carers participated. Stage 1 patient and informal carer participants were recruited from two primary care practices and Stage 2 patients from 28 practices. Participating practices located in the East of England were recruited via the NIHR Clinical Research Network: Eastern. RESULTS: Patients and carers found the tool patient-friendly and comprehensive, with potential clinical utility. No tool items were redundant. Clear correlations were found between tool items and the majority of items in the impact measures. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAP tool has good face, content and criterion validity. It has potential to support the delivery of holistic, supportive, person-centred care by enabling patients to identify and express their unmet support needs to HCPs.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207