ECHO OEM virtual community of learning for primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health issues caused and/or exacerbated by work are common in patients seeking primary health care. Yet, primary care providers generally receive little or no training in the assessment and management of occupational injuries and illnesses. AIMS: To conduct a pilot project to develop, implement and evaluate a programme to teach occupational and environmental medicine to primary healthcare providers. METHODS: We followed the Extensions for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) model to connect primary healthcare providers with experts in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM). We employed an observational pre-post study design to assess changes in self-efficacy, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards OEM. RESULTS: From September 2021 to June 2022, we offered two cycles of 12 sessions each. Participants came from medicine, nursing, psychology, occupational and physical therapy, chiropractic, kinesiology, social work, and pharmacy. Sixty-seven participants completed both pre- and post-ECHO questionnaires. Self-efficacy and knowledge ratings significantly increased after attendance at ECHO compared to the pre-ECHO responses. Attitudes and beliefs were unchanged in most of the items assessed. Participants rated their satisfaction with ECHO between 59% and 97%. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study demonstrated the challenges in implementing the first ECHO OEM in Canada. Findings show acceptability and satisfaction, improved self-efficacy, and small increases in knowledge, but not overall attitudes and beliefs. There is a need to understand barriers to participation and to target participants with less knowledge and experience in occupational and environmental medicine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".