MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280498695 · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08029-8

Pictograms for safer medication handling by health care workers: a validation study in nursing students in Poland

2022· article· en· W4280498695 on OpenAlexaffabout
Piotr Merks, Régis Vaillancourt, Damien Roux, Rafał Gierczyński, Grzegorz Juszczyk, Katarzyna Plagens-Rotman, Urszula Religioni, Jameason D. Cameron, Mike Zender

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursing researchSAFERHealth informaticsPictogramPublic healthHealth administrationNursingHealth careHealth services researchQuality of Life ResearchFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Medication use often causes errors that are dangerous to the health of patients. Previous studies indicate that the use of pharmaceutical pictograms can effectively reduce medication errors. The purpose of this study was to determine the comprehensibility, representativeness, and recall rate of nine medication safety pictograms in a sample of nursing students in Poland in order to validate these images. METHODS: A pictogram validation study was conducted in two phases among nursing students at the Hipolit Cegielski State University of Applied Sciences, Gniezno, Poland. All experimental protocols were approved by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Ethics Board (REB Protocol No: 19/122X). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. In phase 1, the participants' first exposure to the pictograms, the students were asked to guess the meaning of the pictograms without any additional information in order to assess the pictograms' comprehensibility. To be considered valid, according to ISO standards, the pictograms had to be correctly understood by at least 66.7% of participants. After testing all pictograms, students were given explanations and meanings of the pictograms and asked to rate the representativeness of pictograms. To do so, participants were asked to select a number on a seven-point Likert-style scale to indicate the perceived strength of the relationship between the pictogram and its intended meaning for each pictogram. To be considered valid, a pictogram had to be rated at least five on this scale by at least 66.7% of participants. Phase 2 took place four weeks later, during which recall of the intended meaning and representativeness were assessed following the same procedure. RESULTS: A total of 66 third-year nursing students participated in both phases. In phase 1, of the nine pictograms, six met ISO requirements for comprehensibility and seven met ISO requirements for representativeness. In phase 2, all nine pictograms were correctly understood and rated at least 5 by at least 66.7% of participants. Therefore, all nine pictograms are considered valid. CONCLUSIONS: The nine medication safety pictograms can be deployed, but must be combined with training and a written hazard statement to improve comprehension.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.450 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207