MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403510387 · doi:10.1177/19160216241288806

Assessing the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Routine Clinical Care of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients: A Canadian Perspective

2024· article· en· W4403510387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hugh Andrew Jinwook Kim, Daniel J. Lee, Dongho Shin, Garret Horton, Monique A. M. Gignac, John M. Lee, Yvonne Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromMedicineRhinologyPatient-reported outcomeOtorhinolaryngologyChronic rhinosinusitisDemographicsFamily medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common inflammatory disease of the paranasal sinuses with significant quality of life impairments. There is a need to implement outcome-based metrics to evaluate the outcomes of CRS treatment with endoscopic sinus surgery or biologics. Objective We aimed to understand Canadian otolaryngologists’ opinions on patient-related outcome measures (PROM) for CRS and identify potential barriers to implementation. Design Qualitative research. Setting and Participants A cross-sectional survey was distributed via the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and direct emailing. Measures Participants’ demographics, practice information, and opinions on PROM were collected. Results Of 346 (23%) Canadian otolaryngologists, 78 responded to the survey (26 rhinology fellowship–trained, 51 non-fellowship-trained, and 1 missing data). Thirty-eight responded that they collect PROM (69% with fellowship-trained, 39% non-fellowship-trained, P = .029). Regarding opinions on PROM, 74% of respondents agreed that it helps patients report their symptoms, 42% agreed that it improves the efficiency of the patient encounter, 54% agreed that it is easy for patients to understand, 62% agreed that it improves management and monitoring of clinical outcomes, and 71% disagreed that PROM is not helpful. Fellowship-trained otolaryngologists were 4 times more likely to agree that PROM improves management and monitoring of clinical outcomes ( P = .014), and no other differences in opinions were significant. The most-frequently-identified barriers to PROM usage were lack of time for 67% of respondents, difficulty integrating into clinical workflow for 64%, and lack of integration into the electronic medical record for 47%. If these barriers were addressed, 86% of respondents said they would use PROM in their practice. Conclusions and Relevance Despite the low uptake of PROM among otolaryngologists without rhinology fellowship, opinions were generally favorable. We identified barriers that, if addressed, may increase their use in clinical practice. As resource-limited therapies such as biologics become more prevalent in CRS management, PROM may find more applications in shared clinical decision making.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207