MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405889243 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.70308

Using Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Two Program Examples Measuring Health Status in Primary Care: An Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4405889243 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allison Soprovich, Hilary Short, Al‐Bakir Ali, Krista Brower, Arto Öhinmaa, Jeffrey Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuroQol Research Foundation
KeywordsObservational studyVisual analogue scaleMedicinePhysical therapyPopulationIndex (typography)EQ-5DGerontologyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthHealth related quality of life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in primary care practices; however, the broad characteristics of this population pose unique challenges. Generic PROMs (e.g., EQ‐5D‐5L) measure general health status from the patient's perspective, contributing towards a comprehensive evaluation of health programming. This study describes the integration of the EQ‐5D‐5L within program evaluation in primary care in Alberta, Canada, using two program examples. Methods A retrospective, longitudinal, observational design was used. The Edmonton O‐day'min Primary Care Network (EOPCN) routinely collects the EQ‐5D‐5L in their exercise and active living and nutrition programs. Data collected between January 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022 was analyzed descriptively, by dimension, index, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Minimally important differences were used to interpret index (0.04) and VAS scores (7.0) and the Pareto Classification of Health Change was applied to the dimensions. Effect size of change in index and VAS scores and population comparisons were examined. Results In the exercise and active living program ( n = 301), 72% were female with a mean age of 57 (±16) years, and 90.2% reported any problems (levels 2–5) in pain/discomfort. The mean index and VAS scores were 0.74 (±0.18) and 66.5 (±18.9), respectively. Among those with repeated measurement (n = 112), the greatest improvement was in usual activities (17%); the greatest deterioration was in pain/discomfort (25%). In the nutrition program ( n = 573), 71% were female with a mean age of 50 (±17) years, and 75.9% reported any problems in pain/discomfort. The mean index and VAS scores were 0.77 (±0.19) and 70.1 (±15.6), respectively. Among those with repeated measurement ( n = 212), the greatest improvement was in anxiety/depression (16%); the greatest deterioration was in pain/discomfort (26%). In both, health status was lower than the general Alberta population norms. No baseline characteristics were found to be statistically significant. Conclusion These results inform future programming, to help patient needs.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.774
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207