MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393376104 · doi:10.2196/48135

Using Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes to Enhance Substance Use Disorder Care in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4393376104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
MacKenzie Koester, Rosemary Motz, Ariel Porto, Nikita Reyes Nieves, Karen Ashley

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNella and Leon Benoziyo Center for Neurological Diseases, Weizmann Institute of ScienceCentene Corporation
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)Substance usePrimary careHealth carePrimary health careMedicineNursingPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Substance use and overdose deaths make up a substantial portion of injury-related deaths in the United States, with the state of Ohio leading the nation in rates of diagnosed substance use disorder (SUD). Ohio's growing epidemic has indicated a need to improve SUD care in a primary care setting through the engagement of multidisciplinary providers and the use of a comprehensive approach to care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of the Weitzman Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO): Comprehensive Substance Use Disorder Care program to both address and meet 7 series learning objectives and address substances by analyzing (1) the frequency of exposure to the learning objective topics and substance types during case discussions and (2) participants' change in knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, and skills related to the treatment of SUDs pre- to postseries. The 7 series learning objective themes included harm reduction, team-based care, behavioral techniques, medication-assisted treatment, trauma-informed care, co-occurring conditions, and social determinants of health. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach using a conceptual content analysis based on series learning objectives and substances and a 2-tailed paired-samples t test of participants' self-reported learner outcomes. The content analysis gauged the frequency and dose of learning objective themes and illicit and nonillicit substances mentioned in participant case presentations and discussions, and the paired-samples t test compared participants' knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, and skills associated with learning objectives and medication management of substances from pre- to postseries. RESULTS: The results of the content analysis indicated that 3 learning objective themes-team-based care, harm reduction, and social determinants of health-resulted in the highest frequencies and dose, appearing in 100% (n=22) of case presentations and discussions. Alcohol had the highest frequency and dose among the illicit and nonillicit substances, appearing in 81% (n=18) of case presentations and discussions. The results of the paired-samples t test indicated statistically significant increases in knowledge domain statements related to polysubstance use (P=.02), understanding the approach other disciplines use in SUD care (P=.02), and medication management strategies for nicotine (P=.03) and opioid use disorder (P=.003). Statistically significant increases were observed for 2 self-efficacy domain statements regarding medication management for nicotine (P=.002) and alcohol use disorder (P=.02). Further, 1 statistically significant increase in the skill domain was observed regarding using the stages of change theory in interventions (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the ECHO program's content aligned with its stated learning objectives; met its learning objectives for the 3 themes where significant improvements were measured; and met its intent to address multiple substances in case presentations and discussions. These results demonstrate that Project ECHO is a potential tool to educate multidisciplinary providers in a comprehensive approach to SUD care.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.527
GPT teacher head0.745
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207