MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226136325 · doi:10.1370/afm.20.s1.2818

An integrated knowledge translation approach to co-create and evaluate patient education tools on cholesterol management

2022· article· en· W4226136325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richelle Baddeliyanage, Suvabna Theivendrampillai, Christine Fahim, Jacob A. Udell, Sharon E. Straus, Jeanette Cooper, Laura Legere

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityMedicineContext (archaeology)StakeholderPsychological interventionStakeholder engagementLikert scaleKnowledge translationMedical educationKnowledge managementNursingComputer sciencePsychologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: The objective of CHOICES (Community Heart Outcomes Improvement and Cholesterol Education Study) is to understand how evidence-informed cholesterol management can prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 14 health regions at higher risk in Ontario, Canada using a suite of educational interventions. An integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach was used to co-create an educational tool on CVD risk, behaviour modifications for cholesterol management, and cholesterol-lowering medications. In order to further understand the needs of Ontario residents related to CVD prevention, a process evaluation was conducted through engagement with the public. Objective: To evaluate implementation quality including reach, responsiveness and usability of the patient-targeted educational tool for cholesterol management. Study Design: A 10-minute online survey was administered to users of the tool. Population: Adults aged 40-75 years who reside in one of the 14 identified regions in Ontario with higher-than-average CVD risk. The tool and survey were shared broadly in the targeted regions and participants were recruited through social media, stakeholder involvement, and market research organizations. Outcome Measures: Reach was measured by the number of participants who received the tool and completed the survey. The survey measured perceived usability of organization, layout and applicability of the tool (6-items). Responsiveness was measured by the level of receptivity and interest in sharing the tool (4-items). Respondents ranked their level of agreement to each question on a likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Results: 230 users of the tool were recruited to participate, of which 104 completed the survey (response rate= 45.2%). Respondents indicated that the tool's content was clear (M = 6.00, SD = 1.05) and would support them as a patient seeking cholesterol related information (M = 6.00, SD = 0.99). Respondents indicated their high likelihood to recommend the tool to their personal networks (M = 5.37, SD = 1.19) and preference to receive similar information from their family physician (M = 5.92, SD = 1.15). Conclusion: Overall, participant responsiveness and receptivity to the co-created patient educational tool was high. This work enhances understanding of the benefits of co-created patient-targeted interventions to improve cholesterol management and ultimately inform the implementation of similar scalable strategies across Ontario.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.341
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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Management and Education→French-language works237,207→