MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400453248 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.94

095 Engagement of older adults receiving home care services and their caregivers in health decisions in partnership with clinical teams to prioritize and culturally adapt decision aids for home care

2024· article· en· W4400453248 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, Yan Julien, Emmanuelle Aubin, Marie Cimon, Patrick Archambault, Virginie Blanchette, Anik Giguère, Amédé Gogovor, Michèle Morin, Ali Ben Charif, Nouha Ben Gaied, Julie Bickerstaff, Nancy Chénard, Julie Emond, Julie Gilbert, Isabelle Violet, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleFondation du CHUMUniversité LavalEspace pour la vieCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Vieille-CapitaleUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services Sociaux
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipHome healthNursingHealth careMedicinePsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We aimed to prioritize and culturally adapt patient decision aids (PtDAs) for older adults receiving home care in Quebec. Method A steering committee comprising older adults, caregivers, health professionals, policy makers, community representatives, and researchers oversaw this multimethod study. This committee selected 10 PtDAs based on relevance and quality from among 33 identified in a systematic review. We aimed to recruit 60 participants (older adults, caregivers, health professionals, policy makers and PtDA experts) using the snowball method for a 2-round eDelphi to prioritize the PtDAs. In the 1st round, participants ranked PtDAs according to criteria regarding the decision point (prevalence, difficulty, values and preferences, evidence update), with the importance of each criterion rated on a 5-point Likert scale. PtDAs with one or more criteria judged as important by at least 75% of participants were retained for a 2nd round using the same criteria. We expect to retain a maximum of 3 PtDAs for cultural adaptation to the Quebec health care system. Results Email and social media invitations generated 60 potential participants, 42 of whom completed the 1st eDelphi round. Participants were older adults (14.3%), caregivers (28.5%), healthcare professionals (30.9%), managers (16.7%), members of community organizations (4.8%) and PtDA experts (4.8%). Most were women (85.7%), aged 35 to 54 years (50.0%), urban residents (53.7%) and university-educated (42.9%). They prioritized 6 PtDAs for the 2nd round. The 2 criteria most frequently identified as important were decision difficulty and values and preferences. The 2nd Delphi round is being prepared. Discussion This study was developed in response to the decisional needs of older adults and their families. Conclusion Our findings will provide relevant, culturally appropriate PtDAs for older adults making difficult decisions in the province of Quebec.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→