MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400691845 · doi:10.1002/capr.12804

A qualitative study of clinicians' impressions regarding the implementation of a clinical and research data collection system

2024· article· en· W4400691845 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Riopel, Tania Lecomte, Raphaëlle Merlo, Bruno Gauthier, Simon Grenier, Catherine‐Marie Vanasse

Bibliographic record

VenueCounselling and Psychotherapy Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionOpenness to experienceQualitative researchPsychologyMeaning (existential)Medical educationQualitative propertyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicinePsychotherapistSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Systematically collecting data on clientele databases allows for describing the clientele's needs and addressing various clinical research questions. Conducted in a university psychology clinic, this initiative seeks to improve the overall quality of care provided by integrating evidence‐based practices. This study works to bridge the gap between clinical practice and research. Aims This study aimed to describe the potential repercussions and clinicians' impressions regarding the implementation of this procedure. Research Design An inductive qualitative approach, inspired by Husserl's descriptive phenomenology, was used. To be consistent with this approach, data analysis followed Giorgi's five‐step scientific phenomenological method. Data Collection and Analysis Semi‐structured individual interviews were conducted with 14 volunteer clinicians using an interview guide. The data were analysed to extract central themes using Giorgi's method, which involves collecting verbal data, reading the data, dividing it into units of meaning, organising the data using the language of the discipline and synthesising the results. Results Five central themes emerged: barriers to implementation, potential impacts on therapy, recommendations to enhance participation, perceived utility and an attitude of openness. Discussion The pilot project provides valuable insights into the feasibility and acceptability of systematic data collection in a clinical setting. Clinician consultation proves to be essential in the implementation process, highlighting the importance of addressing practical and philosophical obstacles. Conclusion Understanding clinicians' experiences can guide future implementations of similar systems and improve clinical practice by supporting the integration of systematic data collection. Enhanced communication and training on the data collection system are suggested.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.148 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCounselling and Psychotherapy ResearchSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207