Barriers and Facilitators to Optimal Anticoagulation Management: A Focus Group Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) require high-quality management given their frequent use amongst seniors, clinically important benefits and common, serious drug-related harm. Improvement in OAC management has been proposed as a means to improve health outcomes and health care sustainability. The objective of this focus group study is to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal OAC management from the perspective of patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. Methods: We have planned a multi-site qualitative study based on a qualitative descriptive approach with two patient/caregiver focus groups and two health care provider groups to be held in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. The desired sample size is 32-40 participants (based on 8-10 people per focus group). Discussion: The findings from these focus groups will be used to inform our intervention in a follow-up randomized trial, “Coordinated Oral Anticoagulant Care at Hospital eDischarge” (COACHeD) which aims to improve OAC management and bridge knowledge gaps in this area. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of Improving Anticoagulant safety at Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Trial with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02777047.
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 | 0.050 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.009 |
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".