(019) Disclosure of LEEP Complications: Qualitative Analysis of Hospital-affiliated Online Resources in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) efficiently removes abnormal or cancerous cells of the cervix. In recent years, studies have reported on the risks of this procedure. Short-term risks are most consistently reported in the literature, including bleeding, discharge, and cervical stenosis. Long-term risks to pregnancy viability, sexual function, and emotional/psychological wellbeing have also been studied, though to a lesser extent. The dissemination of risk information to patients can take several forms, including physician-patient consultations, discussions with other members of the healthcare team, physical pamphlets and brochures, in addition to online resources. Hospital-affiliated online resources can be used as a measure of how current published literature is translated into practice in the Canadian context. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine whether the risks reported in the literature, that impact pregnancy viability, sexual function, and emotional/phycological wellbeing, are communicated to patients via hospital-affiliated online publicly accessible resources. It also aimed to identify the basis for document curation either from recently published literature or provincial/federal governing agencies. Methods A thorough review of the Canadian Ministry of Health databases for each province identified all the institutions that perform LEEP (n=25). Institutional websites were used as the data source for compiling all online publicly accessible resources. Qualitative analysis of documents was performed using NVivo 12. Results The results from this study indicate that there is discordance between the risks reported in the peer-reviewed literature and the information in online patient-facing resources. More than half of the institutions reported at least one short-term risk, compared to only a quarter that reported at least one long-term risk. Of the documents that had information regarding pregnancy viability, information about pre-term labour was contradictory with some documents reporting increased risk and others reporting no risk. One institution reported on sexual function, specifically that the procedure does not impact sexual function with the justification that it does not impair the ability to have sex. The language used to describe the procedure and its potential risks was variable, with several institutions relying on medical jargon or minimizing words to convey information. Further, of the twenty-five institutions analyzed, only three specified the references they used to develop their document. Forty percent of the documents did not include a date of last update, and of those that did, more than half had not been updated since 2015. This study was unable to find consistent provincial or federal guidelines that informed the curation of these online resources. Conclusions This study indicates that there are inconsistencies between the risks and complications reported in the literature and the information available to patients in the form of hospital-affiliated online resources. This study also determined that there are not provincially or federally mandated guidelines from which these online LEEP resources can be curated. Future studies will aim to 1) determine whether there is sufficient evidence about LEEP-associated risks to justify translating this knowledge to patients and 2) recommend a streamlined process for the inclusion of basic science data in the curation of hospital-affiliated online resources. Disclosure No.
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 | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".