MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111930352

Patient experience of living with benign essential Blepharospasm

2022· other· en· W7111930352 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWL Repository (University of West London) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Academy of OphthalmologyUniversity of West London
KeywordsPatient experienceQualitative researchQuality of life (healthcare)Focus groupAnxietyHealth careBlepharospasmLived experience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The fundamental rights of people with benign essential blepharospasm (BEB) to access timely care and treatment is significantly challenged in the United Kingdom and across the world. The condition causes intermittent and sustained spasms, temporary blindness, facial contortion and social stigma which debilitates the lives of those affected. Patient feedback and personal observation as a specialist practitioner within an outpatient clinic suggest the care provided fails to meet individuals’ needs at a time of acute relapse. In the absence of qualitative evidence, a systematic quality of life review was undertaken in relation to BEB care and treatment. Although people with BEB were shown to have poorer quality of life than healthy individuals, quantitative evidence with numerical scales fails to represent the lived experience of BEB. Retrospective to the findings of the current research, a metasynthesis of BEB care and treatment experience was examined through text and opinions from the UK, the United States of America (USA), Australia and Canada dystonia websites. This offered health professionals a model guide on how to improve services. Aim: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of BEB outpatient treatment and care on patients’ lives. Method: The study data emerged from 10 individual interviews and one focus group discussion. It provided a deeper understanding of BEB lived experience. A lack of knowledge, visual, functional and psychological decline, namely the anxiety experienced from untimely care and treatment in an acute relapse. Qualitative assessment of the patient experience provided the means to give patients a voice to improve the service. This study offers a novel contribution – it bridges the gap between policy, theory and practice. Outcome: The service has been configured through electronic treatment records, NHS Attend Anywhere video severity assessment to improve access, greater community through focus group discussion, uniform practitioners’ training, the introduction of more injectors and clinics to improve geographical disparity. The service is set to address delayed referral, communicating a list of BEB red flags to primary care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWL Repository (University of West London)French-language works237,207