MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113344425 · doi:10.2196/24966

Best Practices for Virtual Engagement of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Teams During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study

2020· article· en· W3113344425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erin K. Thayer, Molly Pam, Morhaf Al Achkar, Laura Mentch, Georgia Brown, Traci M. Kazmerski, Emily M. Godfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Participatory Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsBest practiceWeb applicationWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePsychologyMedical educationKnowledge managementInternet privacyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) engages patients as partners in research and focuses on questions and outcomes that are important to patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced PCOR teams to engage through web-based platforms rather than in person. Similarly, virtual engagement is the only safe alternative for members of the cystic fibrosis (CF) community, who spend their lives following strict infection control guidelines and are already restricted from in-person interactions. In the absence of universal best practices, the CF community has developed its own guidelines to help PCOR teams engage through web-based platforms. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the important attributes, facilitators, and barriers to teams when selecting web-based platforms. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with CF community members, nonprofit stakeholders, and researchers to obtain information regarding their experience with using web-based platforms, including the effectiveness and efficiency of these platforms and their satisfaction with and confidence while using each platform. Interviews conducted via Zoom were audio recorded and transcribed. We identified key themes through content analysis with an iterative, inductive, and deductive coding process. RESULTS: In total, 15 participants reported using web-based platforms for meetings, project management, document sharing, scheduling, and communication. When selecting web-based platforms, participants valued their accessibility, ease of use, and integration with other platforms. Participants speculated that successful web-based collaboration involved platforms that emulate in-person interactions, recognized the digital literacy levels of the team members, intentionally aligned platforms with collaboration goals, and achieved team member buy-in to adopt new platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Successful web-based engagement in PCOR requires the use of multiple platforms in order to fully meet the asynchronous or synchronous goals of the project. This study identified the key attributes for the successful practice of PCOR on web-based platforms and the common challenges and solutions associated with their use. Our findings provide the best practices for selecting platforms and the lessons learned through web-based PCOR collaborations.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.847
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Participatory MedicineSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207