MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214621238 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048504

Relevance of assessment items in community paramedicine home visit programmes: results of a modified Delphi study

2021· article· en· W3214621238 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew Leÿenaar, Amir Allana, Samir K. Sinha, Michael Nolan, Gina Agarwal, Walter Tavares, Andrew P. Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHealth PEIImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty NetworkMitacs
KeywordsCLARITYMedicineDelphi methodRelevance (law)Sample (material)Medical educationNursingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for a structured assessment in community paramedicine home visit programmes have not been established and evidence to inform their creation is lacking. We sought to investigate the relevance of assessment items to the practice of community paramedics according to a pre-established clarity-utility matrix. DESIGN: We designed a modified-Delphi study consisting of predetermined thresholds for achieving consensus, number of rounds of for scoring items, a defined meeting and discussion process, and a sample of participants that was purposefully representative. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We established a panel of 26 community paramedics representing 20 municipal paramedic services in Ontario, Canada. The sample represented a majority of paramedic services within the province that were operating a community paramedicine home visit programme. MEASURES: Drawing from a bank of standardised assessment items grouped according to domains aligned with the International Classification on Functioning, Disability, and Health taxonomy, 64 previously pilot-tested assessment items were scored according to their clarity (being free from ambiguity and easy to understand) and utility (being valued in care planning or case management activities). Assessment items covered a broad range of health, social and environmental domains. To conclude scoring rounds, assessment items that did not achieve consensus for relevance to assessment practices were discussed among participants with opportunities to modify assessment items for subsequent rounds of scoring. RESULTS: Resulting from the first round of scoring, 54 assessment items were identified as being relevant to assessment practices and 3 assessment items were removed from subsequent rounds. The remaining 7 assessment items were modified, with some parts removed from the final items that achieved consensus in the final rounds of scoring. CONCLUSION: A broadly representative panel of community paramedics identified consensus for 61 assessment items that could be included in a structured, multidomain, assessment instrument for guiding practice in community paramedicine home visit programmes. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58273216.

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→