Integrated KT 2.0: The next generation of teamwork
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTObjectiveThe goal of this study was to engage members of a long-standing Integrated KT collaborative in a process to revitalize team goals and processes. “The Need to Know” Team started in 2001 in Manitoba, to engage knowledge users in the conceptualization, creation, and application of population health research. The team has garnered numerous national awards and citations for its approach. We conducted a survey of team members (N=27), representing all Health Authorities in the province, plus provincial government reps. Questions included frequency of data use and medium (print vs online), how well the team is meeting is goals, open-ended questions about how the team could be more useful to members and their organizations, and their top 3 suggestions to ensure the ongoing success and increase the impact of the team.MethodTwenty-two of 27 members responded to the survey (81.5%) within one week. Responses to questions about how well the team is meeting its existing goals revealed high scores – especially among those goals which lay entirely within the scope of the team’s control (91% extremely or moderately well). Objectives relating to larger-scale impacts on the healthcare system had lower ratings (72% extremely or moderately well), as might have been expected. ResultsOver 75% reported that the team’s work had impacted their organization’s work moderately or a lot. The most commonly cited examples were that the work of the team increased capacity for data analysis/interpretation and research (18%), provided results that were used in staff and/or board meetings (15%), influenced decisions and the discussions leading up to them (15%), influenced the development and use of region-relevant quality indicators (13%), and were used in the ongoing education of health professionals (13%). The open-ended questions regarding optimal next steps solicited a variety of suggestions ranging from developing even richer relationships with existing partners, to including a wider variety of partner organizations (e.g. Indigenous groups); aligning team priorities with those of the provincial government (where feasible); and moving to occasional electronic meetings for appropriate content issues and to increase impact in partner organizations. ConclusionThis exercise in reflection and strategic planning has shown that the team has done an exceptional job in achieving its initial goals, most of which remain relevant, but some of which need revision. More importantly, several creative approaches have been suggested which may increase future impact and enhance both the breadth and depth of the team’s reach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».