MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403513712 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11628-2

Factors that facilitate or hinder the use of the facial rehabilitation webtool MEPP 2.0: a comparative study in the Quebecer health system

2024· article· en· W4403513712 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Martineau, Jacinthe Barbeau, Alyssia Paquin, Karine Marcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBausch Health (Canada)Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsHealth informaticsMedicineNursing researchHealth administrationPublic healthRehabilitationHealth services researchQuality of Life ResearchNursingEnvironmental healthPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, our research team developed an open source and free website called the MEPP website (for the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol) to efficiently provide mirror therapy for patients with facial palsy. Previous studies demonstrated that the first version of the MEPP website improved user experience and likely optimized patients' performance during facial therapy. Nevertheless, compliance was found to be low despite a generally positive opinion of the website, and in light of our earlier findings, MEPP 2.0-a revised and enhanced version of the MEPP 0.1-was created. The purpose of this study was to examine and contrast various factors that help or impede institutional partners of the Quebec health care system from using the MEPP 2.0 website in comparison to its initial version. METHODS: Forty-one patients with facial palsy and nineteen clinicians working with this population were enrolled in a within-subject crossover study. For both the MEPP 1.0 and MEPP 2.0, user experience was assessed for all participants. Embodiment was assessed in patients, and factors influencing clinical use were assessed by clinicians. Qualitative comments about their experiences were also gathered. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures were calculated. Differences between the two MEPP versions were assessed using the linear mixed model. RESULTS: Overall, patients appreciated more the MEPP 2.0 (OR = 4.57; p < 0.001), and all clinicians preferred the MEPP 2.0 over the MEPP 1.0. For patients, it seems that facial ownership, as well as possession and control of facial movements, was significantly better with the MEPP 2.0. For clinicians, the MEPP 2.0 specifically allowed them to self-evaluate their intervention and follow up with more objectivity. The use of the MEPP 2.0 was also modulated by what their patients reported. Qualitatively, options to access an Android app and needs for improving the exercises bank were mentioned as hindering factors. CONCLUSIONS: The updated version of the MEPP website, the MEPP 2.0, was preferred by our different partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION: December 2023.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.089 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207