Comparing the usability of the World Health Organization’s conventional tuberculosis guidelines to the eTB recommendations map: A two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Best practices for the dissemination of global health guidelines has not undergone rigorous research. We used a new approach to digitizing World Health Organization (WHO) global tuberculosis guideline recommendations (eTB RecMap) and compared its usability to the conventional method of accessing TB recommendations using the WHO website. We conducted a two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial using a survey among global stakeholders who were past or planned future users of TB guidelines, recommendations, or policy advice. We assigned participants randomly (1:1) to complete an activity using the WHO eTB RecMap or the conventional website. The primary outcome was the accessibility of information and secondary outcomes understanding, satisfaction, and preference for one of the two formats. Between February 26 and August 29, 2021, we received 478 responses from stakeholders, of whom 244 (122 per group) were eligible and provided analysable results. Participants rated the eTB RecMap as more accessible, on average, when compared to the conventional website (on a seven-point scale, the mean difference {MD} was 0.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.6, 1.2; p < 0.001) and were more likely to correctly answer understanding questions. This is the first trial comparing digitized dissemination formats of health guideline recommendations. Stakeholders rated the WHO eTB RecMap as more accessible than the conventional WHO website for the tested recommendations. They also understood presented information better. The findings support better usability of TB information through the eTB RecMap and contribute to the effort to end the TB epidemic. Trial registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04745897) on February 9, 2021.
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 | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".