Development of clinical guidelines, teaching guidelines for the use of oral contraceptives by adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a move towards evidence-based practice in all areas of health care. The development of clinical guidelines for use in practice is seen as one way of ensuring that the practice of clinicians is based on documented evidence. This practicum project describes a clinical situation where there are no current guidelines in use, specifically what and how to teach adolescents when they first start using oral contraceptives. A detailed review of the literature in the areas of clinical guideline development, the role of the nurse practitioner, health care of adolescents, and oral contraceptives was carried out. Clinical teaching guidelines were developed from a synthesis of the literature. A client version of the guidelines in the form of a handout was also developed. The guidelines were then presented to health professionals at three clinical practice sites. After each presentation, participants were asked to provide feedback on the guidelines. The results were very positive, with many participantscommenting that they found the guidelines to be relevant, informative, and useful. An evaluation framework was developed, but was not actually carried out as part of this practicum project due to time restraints. This framework involves a non-experimental pretest-posttest design that measures a shift from baseline (Fitz-Gibbon and Morris, 1987). The purpose of the evaluation project would be to test whether use of the guidelines increases the knowledge base and the satisfaction level of the health professionals using them and to gather feedback from the health professionals regarding the use and effectiveness of the guidelines in order to make any necessary revisions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".