MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024767881 · doi:10.1161/hcq.13.suppl_1.290

Abstract 290: Lessons Learned From Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment Of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): A Pragmatic Clinical Trial Of Computerized Decision Support In Primary Healthcare

2020· article· en· W3024767881 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jafna L. Cox, Laura Hamilton, Joanna Nemis White, Lehana Thabane, James MacKillop, Shurjeel Choudhri, Antonio Ciaccia, Feng Xie, Ratika Parkash, Sarah Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)McMaster UniversityCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialInformaticsConsistency (knowledge bases)Health careIntegrated careClinical decision support systemHealth informaticsLoginDecision support systemMedical emergencyComputer scienceNursingEngineeringComputer securityData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF) was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial assessing the clinical relevance and effectiveness of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. Key challenges encountered included CDS development and implementation (2013-2018), study recruitment (2014-2016) and data analysis (2018 to present). Methods: Clinical and health informatics researchers developed CDS software designed to help primary care providers (PCP) deliver individualized AF patient care based on national guidelines. Features included prioritized automated alerts signaling material changes in patient clinical or biochemical profiles requiring expedited treatment changes. Challenges documented over the trial duration are presented here as lessons learned. Findings: 1) Resources must be allocated for feasibility testing and software development/updates. CDS development took twice as long as projected. Network access and broadband speeds were key impediments to successful uptake. Although modified after pilot testing with an initial cohort of intervention providers, user feedback at study completion suggested the CDS was not sufficiently user-friendly and did not create efficiencies in the clinical management of AF for patients (i.e., repetitive alerts). 2) Integration across e-platforms is crucial. Intellectual property and other technical issues prohibited integration of the CDS within providers’ existing electronic medical records and desired provincial e-health platforms. PCPs cited double data entry/login as impediments to participation/reasons for withdraw. Challenges with data integration across platforms prevented facile and timely data access, analysis and reporting. 3) Study recruitment is resource intensive. In total, 204 PCPs and 1,204 patients participated, representing 25% of all eligible PCPs and 13% of all persons living with AF in Nova Scotia, respectively. The most effective PCP recruitment strategy was in-office, small group lunch and learns. PCPs with past research experience/those who led patient consent processes were top patient recruiters. The study office played a pivotal role in achieving recruitment targets. Conclusions: A rapid growth in healthcare data is leading to the widespread development of CDS software to analyse it. Our experience found practical issues to address if such applications are to succeed. CDS tools that fully integrate multiple critical co-morbid guideline recommendations across eHealth platforms should be pursued. Feasibility testing to assess the practical utility of any healthcare CDS software prior to its implementation is recommended. Lastly, adequate resources are necessary to support successful recruitment of PCPs for future pragmatic clinical trials.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207