MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132034678 · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.021

Developing a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes clinic encounters: The Promoting Adolescents Communication and Engagement study

2021· article· en· W3132034678 on OpenAlexaff
Sinéad Pembroke, Edna Roche, Betsy Sleath, Maria Brenner, Carol Hilliard, Declan Cody, Imelda Coyne

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Education and Counseling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersIrish Research eLibraryNational Children's Research Centre
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research on long-term health conditions indicates that adolescents are not actively involved during their medical visits. Active involvement is essential because this can help adolescents learn how to self-manage their treatment plan. OBJECTIVE: To co-design a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes visits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: A participatory-led approach was used to co-design the video, through a combination of interviews/ focus groups and the establishment of a Youth Advisory Group. METHODS: First, focus groups and one-to-one interviews were held with adolescents, parents and healthcare providers. Second, two workshops were held with the Youth Advisory Group, Parent Advisory Group and stakeholders on script design. Finally, an iterative development of the video took place between the research team, videographer, both advisory groups and the steering committee. There were three rounds of feedback before the video was finalised. RESULTS: Adolescents' content preferences included: 1) message of empowerment; 2) managing your diabetes so you can get on with the fun stuff in life; 3) Promoting independence; 4) Reasons for not speaking at clinic visits and reassurance; 5) Becoming comfortable to speak and ask questions at clinic visits; 6) Practical advice on how to ask questions. Formatting preferences included that the video should be short, divided into segments, with adolescents with diabetes acting in it, and speaking directly to the camera. DISCUSSION: Identifying and reflecting adolescents' needs and preferences for engagement with healthcare providers was critical in the development process. Adolescents' participation in the co-design process was pivotal to the acceptability of the intervention for adolescents with diabetes. PRACTICAL VALUE: The intervention may increase adolescents' participation in communication and interactions with healthcare providers, which may help them to be more active in the self-management of their condition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Education and CounselingSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207