Individualized Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures As a Communication Aid in Outpatient Cardiology Care: A Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) quantify patients' perspectives about their health and well-being, their functioning (emotional, physical, mental, and social), and their health-related quality-of-life. The Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment (APPROACH) developed an ePROM clinical report that includes 4 validated PROM instruments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire, 7-item version [SAQ-7], Patient Health Questionnaire, 2-item and 9-item [PHQ-2 & PHQ-9], Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey [MOS SSS], EuroQol Group 5-level assessment [EQ-5D-5L] and the Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Inventory). The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the APPROACH ePROM clinician report as an adjunct to the care of patients with established coronary artery disease. Utilizing a pre-post interventional study design, we evaluate the APPROACH ePROM tool in 4 outpatient cardiology practices in Alberta over 8 months. A total of 80 patients in the preintervention period and 120 patients in the intervention period will be recruited to participate, and each patient will contribute a single visit. Study outcomes will be evaluated using ePROM usage metrics, and a post-visit survey for both physicians and patients, a single exit interview for physicians, and focus groups for patients. Outcomes will be the feasibility and acceptability of the ePROMs report, as well as its efficacy, based on comparison of measures of physician-patient communication between groups. The pilot will allow us to better understand the possible limitations and facilitators of the study, to guide their further evaluation (full-scale trial) and dissemination. This pilot trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06164457).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".