An interpretive description of health equity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health equity is an increasing global phenomenon of interest among health care professionals \n(HCPs), researchers, and decision-makers. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve to promote \nstandardized care and may have implications relative to health equity. Health care professionals \nrely on evidence including CPGs to be accountable, provide optimal care, and to advance \nadvocacy efforts for people with chronic lung disease. However, CPGs for COPD may \nunintentionally exacerbate health inequities and health disparities experienced by those living in \nnorthern or rural areas where there may be decreased access to supports such as spirometry, \npulmonary rehabilitation, and specialist care. The purpose of this study was to conduct an \ninterdisciplinary analysis of COPD CPGs to understand the contribution and implications of \nthese guidelines to health equity for individuals living with COPD. Different perspectives and \nrepresentations of health equity across the guidelines may have problematic implications and \nchallenges for patients, HCPs and decision-makers. The research question guiding this study is \nhow do CPGs for COPD explicitly or implicitly address health equity? The study design, \ninterpretive description, was guided by critical social theory. Using purposive sampling, publicly \navailable international, national, and provincial English language CPGs for COPD were selected. \nConcurrent data collection and analysis was informed by five items of The Equity Lens \ninstrument and the four items of Domain 5, outlined in the Applicability of the Appraisal of \nGuidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument. The four stages of content \nanalysis are decontextualization, recontextualization, categorization, and compilation. The results \noffer opportunities to engage multiple interdisciplinary knowledge users in dialogue about the \nimplications of CPG adoption to move toward health equity and to best service individuals with \nCOPD in Northeastern Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".