MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316810656 · doi:10.1186/s13223-022-00755-2

Primary care asthma surveillance: a review of knowledge translation tools and strategies for quality improvement

2023· review· en· W4316810656 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Max Moloney, Geneviève C. Digby, Madison MacKinnon, Alison Morra, David Barber, John Queenan, Samir Gupta, Teresa To, M. Diane Lougheed

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenKingston Health Sciences CentreOntario Stroke NetworkQueen's University
FundersSoutheastern Ontario Academic Medical Organization
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineMEDLINEGuidelineKnowledge translationMedical recordClinical decision support systemDocumentationQuality managementHealth careFamily medicineIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyManagement systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Viable knowledge translation (KT) strategies are increasingly sought to improve asthma diagnosis, particularly in primary care. Despite this understanding, practical KT tools to support primary care practitioners are not widely available. Electronic medical records (EMRs) offer an opportunity to optimize the diagnosis and surveillance of chronic diseases such as asthma, and support quality improvement initiatives that increase adherence to guideline-recommended care. This review aims to describe the current state of electronic KT electronic tools (eTools) and surveillance systems for asthma and identify opportunities to increase adherence to asthma diagnostic guidelines by implementing digital KT eTools. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted on Ovid MEDLINE that included the search terms: asthma, asthma diagnosis, asthma surveillance, electronic health records, translational medical research, quality improvement, professional practice gaps, and primary health care published in the previous 10 years. In total, the searches returned 971 articles, 163 of which were considered relevant and read in full. An additional 28 articles were considered after reviewing the references from selected articles. 75 articles were included in this narrative review. RESULTS: Established KT eTools for asthma such as electronic questionnaires, computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSS), chronic disease surveillance networks, and asthma registries have been effective in improving the quality of asthma diagnosis and care. As well, chronic disease surveillance systems, severe asthma registries, and workplace asthma surveillance systems have demonstrated success in monitoring asthma outcomes. However, lack of use and/or documentation of objective measures of lung function, challenges in identifying asthma cases in EMRs, and limitations of data sources have created barriers in the development of KT eTools. Existing digital KT eTools that overcome these data quality limitations could provide an opportunity to improve adherence to best-practice guidelines for asthma diagnosis and management. CONCLUSION: Future initiatives in the development of KT eTools for asthma care should focus on strategies that assist healthcare providers in accurately diagnosing and documenting cases of asthma. A digital asthma surveillance system could support adherence to best-practice guidelines of asthma diagnosis and surveillance by prompting use of objective methods of confirmation to confirm an asthma diagnosis within the EMR.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0200.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207