MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3189996296 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052012

Study protocol on advance care planning in multiple sclerosis (ConCure-SM): intervention construction and multicentre feasibility trial

2021· article· en· W3189996296 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ludovica De Panfilis, Simone Veronese, Michela Bruzzone, Marta Cascioli, Alberto Gajofatto, Maria Grazia Grasso, Paola Kruger, Alessandra Lugaresi, Leigh Manson, Sara Montepietra, Francesco Patti, Eugenio Pucci, Claudio Solaro, Andrea Giordano, Alessandra Solari

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondazione I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Neurologico Carlo BestaUniversità degli Studi di VeronaQueen's UniversityUniversità di BolognaFondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla
KeywordsMedicineAdvance care planningIntervention (counseling)Focus groupContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)ConversationQuality of life (healthcare)NursingHealth careFamily medicinePalliative careAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common cause of progressive neurological disability in young adults. The use of advance care planning (ACP) for people with progressive MS (pwPMS) remains limited. The ConCure-SM project aims to assess the effectiveness of a structured ACP intervention for pwPMS. The intervention consists of a training programme on ACP for healthcare professionals caring for pwPMS, and a booklet to be used during the ACP conversation. Herein, we describe the first two project phases. METHODS: In phase 1 we translated and adapted, to the Italian legislation and MS context, the ACP booklet of the National ACP Programme for New Zealand. Acceptability, comprehensibility and usefulness of the booklet were assessed via 13 personal cognitive interviews with pwPMS and significant others (SOs), and one health professional focus group. Based on these findings, we will revise the booklet. In phase 2 we will conduct a single-arm pilot/feasibility trial with nested qualitative study. Participants will be 40 pwPMS, their SOs, health professionals from six MS and rehabilitation centres in Italy. In the 6 months following the ACP conversation, we will assess completion of an advance care plan document (primary outcome), as well as safety of the intervention. Secondary outcomes will be a range of measures to capture the full process of ACP; patient-carer congruence in treatment preferences; quality of patient-clinician communication and caregiver burden. A qualitative process evaluation will help understand the factors likely to influence future implementation and scalability of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project is coleaded by a neurologist and a bioethicist. Phase 1 has received ethical approvals from each participating centre, while phase 2 will be submitted to the centres in May 2021. Findings from both phases will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN48527663; Pre-results.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.024

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→