Bridging the Gap: Understanding Patient and Clinician Preferences When Designing Preoperative Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, health information has been created from the perspective of the providers with minimum patient consultation, hindering engagement and adherence. The rate of shoulder replacements has increased over the past decade, is associated with shorter hospital stays, and patients are relying on education to be able to participate in shared decision-making. Therefore, to ensure creation of accessible education programs for shoulder replacement procedures, we explored patient and clinician preferences regarding content and device choices for a preoperative shoulder replacement education program. METHODS: This study used an interpretive descriptive qualitative approach to understand patient and clinician preferences. We included a subset of patient and healthcare provider perspectives, from those who had previously completed our quantitative survey. Interviews were conducted in English by one researcher. Analysis was conducted through a descriptive thematic analysis with open coding. RESULTS: A total of 10 patients and 9 healthcare providers were interviewed. Findings were categorized into four main themes described the process of creating patient education material (1) methods of accessing information, (2) deciding on educational content, (3) deciding on device use, and the last theme of factors affecting engagement can be further divided as (4-1) promotors of engagement and (4-2) barriers of engagement. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal program of a website with videos and a written booklet, that covers basic information regarding the surgery, timelines for recovery, sling use, use of therapeutic devices/aids post-surgery, patient expectations to improve surgery satisfaction, postoperative restrictions, pain management, rehabilitation and home supports is desired by both patients and clinicians.
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 | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".