MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4375956156 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066189

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol

2023· article· en· W4375956156 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Florian Naye, France Légaré, Jean‐Sébastien Paquette, Yannick Tousignant‐Laflamme, Annie LeBlanc, Isabelle Gaboury, Marie-Ève Poitras, Karine Toupin‐April, Linda Li, Alison M. Hoens, Marie-Dominique Poirier, Simon Décary

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut du Savoir MontfortUniversity of OttawaResearch CanadaCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHealth carePopulationPsychological interventionDecision aidsChronic painProtocol (science)RegretNursingFamily medicineAlternative medicinePhysical therapyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways. Methods and analysis Design Grounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines. Sampling The Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). Content Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. Analysis We will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses. Ethics and dissemination Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→