MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388720763 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5454

Practice facilitation for family physicians to contact patients unvaccinated for COVID-19: a randomized trial

2023· article· en· W4388720763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Shuldiner, Aïsha Lofters, Noor-Ul-Huda Shah, Tara Kiran, Stacey Bar-Ziv, Isaac I. Bogoch, Justin Presseau, Dominik Alex Nowak, Noah Ivers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialContext (archaeology)FacilitatorFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)PediatricsNursingInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Family physicians have an important role to play in encouraging vaccine confidence among their patients. We evaluated a practice facilitation intervention in partnership with Ontario Health, a provincial government agency, to support family physicians in Ontario with proactive outreach among patients unvaccinated for COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether a multicomponent practice facilitation intervention would increase vaccine rates among patients of family physicians with the largest number of unvaccinated patients. Study Design and Analysis: A 1:1 two-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (Clinical trial#: NCT05099497). Setting or Dataset: The trial was conducted from November 2021-March 2022 in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province. Data were obtained from the provincial vaccine registry and were linked to routinely used administrative databases. Population Studied: 600 family physicians with the largest number of unvaccinated patients in the province. Intervention/Instrument: Practice facilitators offered physicians support to identify, reach out, and counsel their unvaccinated patients. Outcome Measures: Any vaccine dose during a four-month follow-up interval among rostered patients over 12 years/100. Results: 300 family physicians who cared for a median of 2,399 patients (IQR 2,024-2,747) were randomized to control; the 300 randomized to the intervention cared for a median of 2,394 patients (IQR: 1,907-2,829). Only 29% (n=90) of intervention physicians accepted assistance from a practice facilitator. Among those that received support, 58% (n=51) used technical support to identify unvaccinated patients in their EMRs, 29% (n=26) connected with medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 31% (n=27) used automated calling to reach patients. The proportion of adult patients of control physicians with COVID vaccine doses was 82 (IQR: 78-85) at baseline and 83 (IQR: 80-86) after four months. In the intervention group, the proportion of patients with a COVID vaccine dose was 81 (IQR: 76-85) at baseline and 83 (IQR: 79-86) after four months. The relative rate of vaccine uptake of any dose was non-significant (RR= 1.0, CI:0.97-1.02, p=0.824). Conclusion: There was no detectable increase in vaccination uptake among patients who were rostered to family physicians in the intervention group. Low intervention fidelity is a possible explanation for the trial’s null’s results.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→