MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220781568 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059040

Investigating the role and applicability of patient versions of guidelines in oncology and deriving recommendations for the development, dissemination and implementation of patient versions in Germany: protocol for multiphase study

2022· article· en· W4220781568 on OpenAlexaff
Monika Becker, Stefanie Bühn, Nora Meyer, Susanne Blödt, Günther Carl, Markus Follmann, Stefanie Frenz, Thomas Langer, Monika Nothacker, Nancy Santesso, Corinna Schaefer, Dawid Pieper

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersGemeinsame Bundesausschuss
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineStakeholderFocus groupGermanProtocol (science)Health careMEDLINEMedical educationAlternative medicinePublic relationsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) has published patient versions of clinical practice guidelines for more than 10 years. However, a systematic evaluation of these is lacking. The project aims to investigate the role and applicability of patient versions by considering the perspectives of experts, patients and healthcare providers to derive recommendations for the development, dissemination and implementation of patient versions in Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The project comprises two main modules. In module 1, we will first obtain information on methods and approaches for the development, dissemination and implementation of patient versions by conducting systematic searches in Medline and screening the websites of guideline organisations. We will include any articles, such as methodological or empirical reports, published in German or English since 2000, that address methodological aspects related to patient versions. Further, we will conduct 20 interviews with experts from international and German organisations who are involved in the development of patient versions. In module 2, we will first conduct interviews to explore patients and healthcare providers' perceptions of patient versions of the GGPO. For the group of patients and the group of healthcare providers, we aim to conduct 25 interviews each. Second, we will conduct focus groups, separately for breast, prostate and colon cancer. The recruitment of participants for the interviews and focus groups will primarily be done through a previous survey about patient versions in oncology. The results will be used to derive recommendations for enhancing the development, dissemination and implementation of patient versions by involving the relevant stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the qualitative parts of the project was given by the Ethics Committee of Witten/Herdecke University (number 160/2021). Participants will be required to provide informed consent. The project findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.009

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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207