MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385620991 · doi:10.1002/msc.1801

Implementing a guideline‐based education and exercise program for people with knee and hip osteoarthritis—Practical experiences of providers and clinic leaders: A qualitative study

2023· article· en· W4385620991 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ania Kania‐Richmond, Chelsea Jones, Jason Martyn, Staci Hastings, Kira Ellis, Geneviève Jessiman‐Perreault, David A. Hart, Jill Robert, Mel Slomp, Lauren A Beaupré

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaAlberta HealthAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisMedicineMedical educationRehabilitationQualitative researchNursingPhysical therapyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The G ood L ife with osteo A rthritis: D enmark (GLA:D TM ) program is an evidence‐based education and exercise program designed for individuals with symptomatic hip and knee osteoarthritis. Launched in Denmark, it has been implemented across Europe, Australia, and North America. The authors assessed the feasibility of GLAD TM implementation in Canada (Alberta) by applying the RE‐AIM framework. An evaluation objective was to identify factors impacting the implementation of the program in both publicly funded and private rehabilitation settings, based on the experience of the initial cohort of providers and clinic leaders who set up and delivered the program. Methods Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with GLA:D TM ‐trained providers, managers, or directors of clinics across Alberta. Braun and Clarke's thematic approach was used to code the data and identify emergent categories and themes. Those relevant to the implementation were identified and by consensus, categorized as facilitators of and challenges to the implementation process. Results Eighteen GLA:D TM ‐trained providers and three clinic leaders from a range of clinical settings completed an interview. Seven common themes emerged in relation to implementation across the study settings. Three themes reflect facilitators of implementation (program acceptability by providers, multi‐level support mechanisms, and program flexibility) and four implementation challenges (direct and indirect costs, lack of external referrals, program access issues, and lack of suitable space). The initial implementation of the program was exploratory with limited focus on long‐term sustainability. Conclusions The GLA:D TM program is a translatable program that can be implemented with relative ease in both public and private rehabilitation settings; however, costs, space constraints, and having an adequate referral base were noted challenges. Further work is warranted to explore equitable access across public and private settings and program sustainability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.284
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusculoskeletal CareSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207