MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181631319 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045816

EXperienceS and aTtitudes towards Agitated behaviours in Traumatic brain injury in the Intensive Care unit patients (EXSTATIC): a protocol for an interprofessional mixed-method study

2021· article· en· W3181631319 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mar Saavedra‐Mitjans, Pierre‐Marie David, Anne-Julie Frenette, Caroline Arbour, Marc M. Perreault, Virginie Williams, Françis Bernard, David Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersFundación Alfonso Martín Escudero
KeywordsMedicineThematic analysisQualitative researchProtocol (science)Intensive care unitFocus groupTraumatic brain injuryHealth careIntensive careResearch ethicsNursingQualitative propertyPsychiatryIntensive care medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Agitation and violent behaviours are common conditions developed by patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs). Healthcare professionals caring for these patients have various tools to manage these behaviours, but lack of a formal protocol to assess and manage them makes caring for these patients a challenge. Moreover, safety may often be compromised for both ICU professionals and patients encountering such situations. The EXperienceS and aTtitudes towards Agitated behaviours in Traumatic brain injury in the Intensive Care unit patients (EXSTATIC) study aims to explore the experiences and attitudes of ICU nurses and other ICU healthcare professionals on the management of agitated behaviours in patients with acute TBI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EXSTATIC is a multicenter mixed methods convergent study exploring experiences and attitudes of ICU healthcare professionals caring of agitated patients with TBI. The study includes three qualitative methods (observation, semistructured interviews and focus groups) and one quantitative method (retrospective cohort). The integration of the different methods will be done using sequential steps of the research and by the integration of results for each step. Qualitative data will be evaluated following a thematic analysis derived from a grounded theory approach. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative and quantitative results will be combined in a convergent interactive interpretative design. Gender and race perspective will be integrated in collection, analysis and interpretation of data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du nord de l'île de Montréal (CIUSSS-NÎM) Research Ethics Board. The findings will be disseminated locally with ICU staff and health managers, international peer-reviewed journals, a PhD dissertation, and national and international conferences. The knowledge derived from this study is key in the development of clinical protocols to manage agitation and related behaviours in patients with TBI and designing further interventional studies targeting this specific problematic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04741399.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207