MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086688504 · doi:10.2196/19196

Document-Engineering Methodology in Health Care: An Innovative Behavioral Science–Based Approach to Improve Patient Empowerment

2020· article· en· W3086688504 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bernd Pohlmann‐Eden, Silke C Eden

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careEmpowermentPatient safetyHarmConversationPsychologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsMedicineMedical educationComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging patients in their treatment and making them experts of their condition has been identified as a high priority across many medical disciplines. Patient empowerment claims to improve compliance, patient safety, and disease outcome. Patient empowerment may help the patient in shared decision making and in becoming an informed partner of the health care professional. We consider patient empowerment to be in jeopardy if written medical information for patients is too complex and confusing. We introduce document-engineering methodology (DEM) as a new tool for the health care industry. DEM tries to implement principles of cognitive science and neuroscience-based concepts of reading and comprehension. It follows the most recent document design techniques. DEM has been used in the aviation, mining, and oil industries. In these very industries, DEM was integrated to improve user performance, prevent harm, and increase safety. We postulate that DEM, applied to written documents in health care, will help patients to quickly navigate through complex written information and thereby enable them to better comprehend the essence of the medical information. DEM aims to empower the patient and help start an informed conversation with their health care professional. The ultimate goals of DEM are to increase adherence and compliance, leading to improved outcomes. Our approach is innovative, as we apply our learning from other industries to health care; we call this cross-industry innovation. In this manuscript, we provide illustrative examples of DEM in three frequent clinical scenarios: (1) explaining a complex diagnosis for the first time, (2) understanding medical leaflet information, and (3) exploring cannabis-based medicine. There is an urgent need to test DEM in larger clinical cohorts and for careful proof-of-concept studies, regarding patient and stakeholder engagement, to be conducted.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207