MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307689801 · doi:10.7861/fhj.2022-0028

Strategies to promote guideline adoption: lessons learned from the implementation of a national COVID-19 hospital guideline across NHS Wales

2022· article· en· W4307689801 on OpenAlexaff
Rhys Jefferies, Mark Ponsford, Chris Davies, Sharon Julie Williams, Simon Barry

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Healthcare Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersLlywodraeth Cymru
KeywordsGuidelineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicResource (disambiguation)Health careUnit (ring theory)Medical educationMedicineNursingPsychologyMedical emergencyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little understanding about what proportion of the target audience have read guidelines published through the traditional approach. The COVID-19 pandemic created a particularly difficult scenario for healthcare professionals (HCP) since the evidence base rapidly changed. In response, we established a freely accessible, video-based online resource, which was formally implemented requiring user registration. The guideline rapidly gained more than 4,500 registrants in the first wave alone, including nearly 100% of respiratory, intensive care or emergency unit consultants in Wales. During the first wave, there were nearly 170,000 page views with over 31,000 video plays and an average of 5.8 visits to the site per registrant. Acceptability using an online survey showed widespread support and that the unsubscribe rates were remarkably low. We suggest that this novel approach to guideline implementation achieved its aim of widespread engagement and acceptability and serves as a potential model for future medical guidelines and education beyond COVID-19.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.563
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture Healthcare JournalSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207