MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200245879 · doi:10.3233/shti210710

Sharing Clinical Notes in a Canadian Mental Health Setting: Recommendations from Applying the Consolidated Framework for Intervention Research

2021· article· en· W4200245879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian Lo, Iman Kassam, Keri Durocher, Danielle H. Shin, Nelson Shen, Gillian Strudwick

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPandemicHealth careNursingMedicineMedical educationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the OpenNotes movement presents an optimal solution for virtual engagement through the sharing of clinical notes within mental health care settings. Therefore, we conducted interviews to discover how mental health clinicians interact with patients using OpenNotes. We integrated The Consolidated Framework for Intervention Research to establish implementation recommendations. As both challenges and opportunities were identified, future research should address challenges to foster patient and clinician engagement in sharing clinical notes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207