Sarah Elliott

Dr. Sarah Elliott


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 November 2019 in Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AGAllison Gates
Allison Gates
SGSamantha Guitard
Samantha Guitard
JPJennifer Pillay
Jennifer Pillay
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
MDMichele P. Dyson
Michele P. Dyson
LHLisa Hartling
Lisa Hartling
Background: We explored the performance of three machine learning tools designed to facilitate title and abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs) when used to (a) eliminate irrelevant records (automated simulation) and (b) complement the work of a single reviewer (semi-automated simulation). We evaluated user experiences for each tool.Methods: We subjected three SRs to two retrospective screening simulations. In each tool (Abstrackr, DistillerSR, RobotAnalyst), we screened a 200-record training set and downloaded the predicted relevance of the remaining records. We calculated the proportion missed and workload and time savings compared to dual independent screening. To test user experiences, eight research staff tried each tool and completed a survey.Results: Using Abstrackr, DistillerSR, and RobotAnalyst, respectively, the median (range) proportion missed was 5 (0 to 28) percent, 97 (96 to 100) percent, and 70 (23 to 100) percent for the automated simulation and 1 (0 to 2) percent, 2 (0 to 7) percent, and 2 (0 to 4) percent for the semi-automated simulation. The median (range) workload savings was 90 (82 to 93) percent, 99 (98 to 99) percent, and 85 (85 to 88) percent for the automated simulation and 40 (32 to 43) percent, 49 (48 to 49) percent, and 35 (34 to 38) percent for the semi-automated simulation. The median (range) time savings was 154 (91 to 183), 185 (95 to 201), and 157 (86 to 172) hours for the automated simulation and 61 (42 to 82), 92 (46 to 100), and 64 (37 to 71) hours for the semi-automated simulation. Abstrackr identified 33–90% of records missed by a single reviewer. RobotAnalyst performed less well and DistillerSR provided no relative advantage. User experiences depended on user friendliness, qualities of the user interface, features and functions, trustworthiness, ease and speed of obtaining predictions, and practicality of the export file(s).Conclusions: The workload savings afforded in the automated simulation came with increased risk of missing relevant records. Supplementing a single reviewer’s decisions with relevance predictions (semi-automated simulation) sometimes reduced the proportion missed, but performance varied by tool and SR. Designing tools based on reviewers’ self-identified preferences may improve their compatibility with present workflows.Systematic review registration: Not applicable.

14 January 2016 in Current Oncology Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SPSarah A. Purcell
Sarah A. Purcell
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
CKCandyce H. Kroenke
Candyce H. Kroenke
MSMichael B. Sawyer
Michael B. Sawyer
CPCarla Prado
Carla Prado

23 July 2020 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
MDMichele P Dyson
Michele P Dyson
GWGilbert V Wilkes
Gilbert V Wilkes
GZGabrielle L Zimmermann
Gabrielle L Zimmermann
CCChristine T Chambers
Christine T Chambers
LHLisa Hartling
Lisa Hartling
Background: Despite extensive literature describing the use of social media in health research, a gap exists around best practices in establishing, implementing, and evaluating an effective social media knowledge translation (KT) and exchange strategies. Objective: This study aims to examine successes, challenges, and lessons learned from using social media within health research and to create practical considerations to guide other researchers. Methods: The Knowledge Translation Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit formed a national working group involving platform staff, academics, and a parent representative with experience using social media for health research. We collected and analyzed 4 case studies that used a variety of social media platforms and evaluation methods. The case studies covered a spectrum of initiatives from participant recruitment and data collection to dissemination, engagement, and evaluation. Methods and findings from each case study as well as barriers and facilitators encountered were summarized. Through iterative discussions, we converged on recommendations and considerations for health researchers planning to use social media for KT. Results: We provide recommendations for elements to consider when developing a social media KT strategy: (1) set a clear goal and identify a theory, framework, or model that aligns with the project goals and objectives; (2) understand the intended audience (use social network mapping to learn what platforms and social influences are available); (3) choose a platform or platforms that meet the needs of the intended audience and align well with the research team’s capabilities (can you tap into an existing network, and what mode of communication does it support?); (4) tailor messages to meet user needs and platform requirements (eg, plain language and word restrictions); (5) consider timing, frequency, and duration of messaging as well as the nature of interactions (ie, social filtering and negotiated awareness); (6) ensure adequate resources and personnel are available (eg, content creators, project coordinators, communications experts, and audience stakeholder or patient advocate); (7) develop an evaluation plan a priori driven by goals and types of data available (ie, quantitative and qualitative); and (8) consider ethical approvals needed (driven by evaluation and type of data collection). Conclusions: In the absence of a comprehensive framework to guide health researchers using social media for KT, we provide several key considerations. Future research will help validate the proposed components and create a body of evidence around best practices for using and evaluating social media as part of a KT strategy

18 November 2020 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
COCamila L P Oliveira
Camila L P Oliveira
NBNormand G Boulé
Normand G Boulé
ASArya M Sharma
Arya M Sharma
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
MSMario Siervo
Mario Siervo
CPCarla Prado
Carla Prado
High-protein diets and total diet replacements are becoming increasingly popular for weight loss; however, further research is needed to elucidate their impact on the mechanisms involved in weight regulation. The aim of this inpatient metabolic balance study was to compare the impact of a high-protein total diet replacement (HP-TDR) versus a control diet (CON) on select components of energy metabolism in healthy adults of both sexes. The acute intervention was a randomized, controlled, crossover design with participants allocated to 2 isocaloric arms: 1) HP-TDR: 35% carbohydrate, 40% protein, and 25% fat achieved through a nutritional supplement; 2) CON: 55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat. Participants received the prescribed diets for 32 h while inside a whole-body calorimetry unit (WBCU). The first dietary intervention randomly offered in the WBCU was designed to maintain energy balance and the second matched what was offered during the first stay. Energy expenditure, macronutrient oxidation rates and balances, and metabolic blood markers were assessed. Body composition was measured at baseline using DXA. Forty-three healthy, normal-weight adults (19 females and 24 males) were included. Compared with the CON diet, the HP-TDR produced higher total energy expenditure [(EE) 81 ± 82 kcal/d, P <0.001], protein and fat oxidation rates (38 ± 34 g/d, P <0.001; 8 ± 20 g/d, P = 0.013, respectively), and a lower carbohydrate oxidation rate (–38 ± 43 g/d, P <0.001). Moreover, a HP-TDR led to decreased energy (–112 ± 85 kcal/d; P <0.001), fat (–22 ± 20 g/d; P <0.001), and carbohydrate balances (–69 ± 44 g/d; P <0.001), and increased protein balance (90 ± 32 g/d; P <0.001). Our primary findings were that a HP-TDR led to higher total EE, increased fat oxidation, and negative fat balance. These results suggest that a HP-TDR may promote fat loss compared with a conventional isocaloric diet. These trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02811276 and NCT03565510.

5 January 2021 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
COCamila Lemos Pinto Oliveira
Camila Lemos Pinto Oliveira
NBNormand Boule
Normand Boule
Aloys BergAloys Berg
Aloys Berg
ASArya M. Sharma
Arya M. Sharma
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
CPCarla Prado
Carla Prado
The aim of this study was to compare the impact of a high-protein meal replacement (HP-MR) versus a control (CON) breakfast on exercise metabolism. In this acute, randomized controlled, cross-over study, participants were allocated into two isocaloric arms: (a) HP-MR: 30% carbohydrate, 43% protein, and 27% fat; (b) CON: 55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat. Following breakfast, participants performed a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise while inside a whole-body calorimetry unit. Energy expenditure, macronutrient oxidation, appetite sensations, and metabolic blood markers were assessed. Forty-three healthy, normal-weight adults (24 males) participated. Compared to the CON breakfast, the HP-MR produced higher fat oxidation (1.07 ± 0.33 g/session; p = 0.003) and lower carbohydrate oxidation (−2.32 ± 0.98 g/session; p = 0.023) and respiratory exchange ratio (−0.01 ± 0.00; p = 0.003) during exercise. After exercise, increases in hunger were lower during the HP-MR condition. Changes in blood markers from the fasting state to post-exercise during the HP-MR condition were greater for insulin, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, peptide tyrosine-tyrosine, and gluca-gon-like peptide 1, and lower for triglyceride and glycerol. Our primary findings were that a HP-MR produced higher fat oxidation during the exercise session, suppression of hunger, and improved metabolic profile after it.

13 March 2020 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
HAHarrison Anzinger
Harrison Anzinger
SESarah Elliott
Sarah Elliott
LHLisa Hartling
Lisa Hartling
Background: Connecting parents to research evidence is known to improve health decision making. However, guidance on how to develop effective knowledge translation (KT) tools that synthesize child-health evidence into a form understandable by parents is lacking. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative usability analysis of three Web-based KT tools to identify differences in tool effectiveness, identify which format parents prefer, and better understand what factors affect usability for parents. Methods: We evaluated a Cochrane plain language summary (PLS), Blogshot, and a Wikipedia page on a specific child-health topic (acute otitis media). A mixed method approach was used involving a knowledge test, written usability questionnaire, and a semistructured interview. Differences in knowledge and usability questionnaire scores for each of the KT tools were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests, considering a critical significance value of P=.05. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize and identify common parent preferences among the semistructured interviews. Key elements parents wanted in a KT tool were derived through author consensus using questionnaire data and parent interviews. Results: In total, 16 parents (9 female) with a mean age of 39.6 (SD 11.9) years completed the study. Parents preferred the Blogshot over the PLS and Wikipedia page (P=.002) and found the Blogshot to be the most aesthetic (P=.001) and easiest to use (P=.001). Knowledge questions and usability survey data also indicated that the Blogshot was the most preferred and effective KT tool at relaying information about the topic. Four key themes were derived from thematic analysis, describing elements parents valued in KT tools. Parents wanted tools that were (1) simple, (2) quick to access and use, and (3) trustworthy, and which (4) informed how to manage the condition. Out of the three KT tools assessed, Blogshots were the most preferred tool by parents and encompassed these four key elements. Conclusions: It is important that child health evidence be available in formats accessible and understandable by parents to improve decision making, use of health care resources, and health outcomes. Further usability testing of different KT tools should be conducted involving broader populations and other conditions (eg, acute vs chronic) to generate guidelines to improve KT tools for parents.