Development of a patient-centred electronic review template to support self-management in primary care: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Electronic templates are frequently used in long-term condition (LTC) reviews (for example, asthma) to act as reminders and improve documentation; however, they can restrict patient-centred care and opportunities for patients to discuss concerns and self-management. Aim The IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) programme aimed to develop a patient-centred asthma review template that encourages supported self-management. Design & setting This was a mixed-methods study, which integrated qualitative and systematic review data, primary care Professional Advisory Group feedback, and qualitative data from clinician interviews. Method Aligned with the Medical Research Council complex intervention framework, a template was developed in the following three phases: (1) development phase, which consisted of a qualitative exploration with clinicians and patients, a systematic review, and prototype template development; (2) feasibility pilot phase, which involved feedback from clinicians (n= 7); and (3) pre-piloting phase, which consisted of delivering the template within the IMP2ART implementation strategy (incorporating the template with patient and professional resources) and eliciting clinician feedback (n= 6). Results Template development was guided by the preliminary qualitative work and the systematic review. A prototype template was developed with an opening question to establish patient agendas, and a closing prompt to confirm agendas have been addressed and an asthma action plan provided. The feasibility pilot identified refinements needed, including focusing the opening question on asthma. Pre-piloting ensured integration with the IMP2ART strategy. Conclusion Following the multi-stage development process, the implementation strategy, including the asthma review template, is now being tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial.
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 | 0.221 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".