MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220998127 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001065

Catalan experience of deadoption of low-value practices in primary care

2022· article· en· W4220998127 on OpenAlexaff
Cari Almazán, Johanna Milena Caro-Mendivelso, Montse Mías, Leslie Barrionuevo-Rosas, Montse Moharra, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalanContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)Health carePrimary careScale (ratio)Key (lock)NursingQuality (philosophy)PopulationEnlightenmentBusinessPublic relationsMedicineProcess managementKnowledge managementPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceFamily medicineGeographyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reducing ineffective practices is one way to ensure high-quality and efficient healthcare for the population. For this reason, several initiatives have been implemented worldwide to reduce low-value care. This article describes the experience of the Essencial project, a multifaceted deadoption strategy implemented in the Catalan primary care system. Lessons learnt from this project include the importance of considering the local context in deadoption strategies, providing adequate training and communication material to patients and clinicians and supporting the key role of clinical champions. Given the knowledge gaps regarding the conditions for successful deadoption strategies, the Catalan experience could provide enlightenment on how to implement, evaluate and sustain a large-scale collaborative deadoption strategy in primary healthcare.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.779
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207