An international collaborative study to co-produce a patient-reported outcome measure of cardiac arrest survivorship and health-related quality of life (CASHQoL): A protocol for developing the long-form measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current measures of health-related quality of life are neither sufficiently sensitive or specific to capture the complex and heterogenous nature of the recovery and survivorship associated with cardiac arrest. To address this critical practice gap, we plan a mixed-methods study to co-produce and evaluate a new cardiac arrest-specific patient/survivor-reported outcome measure (PROM). Methods: International guidelines have informed a two-stage, iterative, and interactive process.Stage one will establish what is important to measure following cardiac arrest. A meta-ethnography of published qualitative research and a qualitative exploration of the experiences of survivors and their key supporters will inform the development of a measurement framework. This will be supplemented by existing, extensive reviews describing concepts that have previously been measured in this population. Focus groups with survivors, key supporters, and healthcare professionals, followed by further interviews with survivors and key supporters, will inform the iterative refinement of the framework, candidate items, and PROM structure.Stage two will involve a psychometric evaluation following completion by a large cohort of survivors. Measurement theory will inform: the identification of items that best measure important outcomes; item reduction; and provide robust evidence of measurement and practical properties. Discussion: An international, collaborative approach to PROM development will engage survivors, key supporters, researchers, and health professionals from study commencement. Successful co-production of the cardiac arrest survivorship and health-related quality of life (CASHQoL) measure will provide a robust, relevant, and internationally applicable measure, suitable for completion by adult survivors, and integration into research, registries, and routine care settings.Ethical approval: University of Warwick Biomedical & Scientific Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 22/20-21 granted 10/11/20).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.254 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".