MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3094986553 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138372

Development and Evaluation of a Community of Practice to Support Stem Cell Donor Recruitment in Canada

2020· article· en· W3094986553 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Elena Kum, Adriyan Hrycyshyn, Gabrielė Jagelavičiūtė, Angela Carly Chen, Iman Baharmand, Samer Rihani, Gabriella Rumball, Div Patel, Rana Kandel, Sylvia Okonofua, Edward Wei Li, Sze Wah Samuel Chan, Shamini Vijaya Kumar, Kenneth Williams, Daniel Tarade, Lillie Proksch, Warren Fingrut

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ReginaLaurentian UniversityUniversity of WaterlooQueen's UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of OttawaStem Cell NetworkWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClubAttritionMedicinePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: A community of practice (COP) is a group of people who share a passion for something, and learn how to perform better as they interact regularly. COPs have been shown to be effective models for achieving quality outcomes in healthcare. We report the development and evaluation of a COP in stem cell donor recruitment in Canada. Methodology: In 09/2017, we launched a COP in stem cell donor recruitment in Canada. Stakeholders in donor recruitment were invited via email and Facebook posts to participate in regular e-meetings and a Facebook group. E-meeting topics included running larger stem cell drives, recruiting the most needed donors, redirecting non-optimal donors, reviews of drive outcomes and strategies to improve, using patient stories to support donor recruitment, and reducing donor attrition. Each e-meeting included speakers and roundtable discussion relevant to the theme. The Facebook group facilitated discussion and sharing of resources between e-meetings (see Fig. A for examples of posts). COP participants were also invited to join subcommittees which focused on developing needed resources or achieving specific objectives identified by the COP. A survey was sent to COP participants in 01/2020 to evaluate the perceived impact of the COP to donor recruitment practice. Recruitment outcomes by COP participants of the Canadian donor recruitment organization Stem Cell Club were compared before and after the launch of the COP. Results: As of 07/2020, the COP Facebook group included 333 stakeholders in donor recruitment (312 donor recruiters from Stem Cell Club; 15 patients/donors; 6 donor registry staff). 51 unique attendees participated in 7 e-meetings, 21 of whom attended 2 or more meetings. COP participants collaboratively set the following goals for the COP: 1) to foster teamwork and collaboration in donor recruitment efforts; 2) to improve knowledge and practice related to donor recruitment; 3) to improve recruitment of the most-needed donors; and 4) to improve donor recruiters' ability to run high quality stem cell drives. 141 posts were published to the Facebook group about patient/donor stories (41%), resources in stem cell donation (23%), stem cell drive outcomes and campaigns (15%), updates related to donor recruitment (14%), and questions posed to the community by COP participants (5%). 44 COP participants completed the COP evaluation survey. The majority agreed/strongly agreed that the Facebook group (86%) and e-meetings (59%) supported the development of a community. 64-84% agreed/strongly agreed that participating in the COP fostered collaboration; improved their knowledge and practice in donor recruitment; and improved their ability to run higher quality drives and recruit most-needed donors (Fig. B). Stem Cell Club's donor recruitment outcomes improved following the launch of the COP: in 2016-2017, Stem Cell Club recruited 2918 donors (46% male; 55.9% of males non-Caucasian) compared to 3418 donors in 2017-2018 (52.7% male; 57.8% of males non-Caucasian), and 4531 donors in 2018-2019 (52.9% male; 62.7% of males non-Caucasian) (Fig C). Finally, a number of outputs were generated as a result of collaboration through the COP, including development of resources such as an infographic (stemcellclub.ca/promo.html), a whiteboard video series (youtu.be/V4fVBtxnWfM), and a stem cell donation story library (#WhyWeSwab; facebook.com/WhyWeSwab). COP participants collaborated on national donor recruitment campaigns, securing coverage in major media outlets across Canada (including Toronto Star: thestar.com/life/2019/11/15/stem-cell-donors-wanted-get-swabbed-campaign-coming-to-university-campuses.html; Toronto Sun: torontosun.com/news/local-news/working-to-build-canadas-network-of-stem-cell-donors; London Free Press: lfpress.com/news/local-news/toddlers-case-proves-patients-must-harness-social-media-in-quest-for-stem-cell-donors-advocates; and Victoria News: vicnews.com/news/stem-cell-drive-at-uvic-aims-to-find-lifesaving-donors-for-patients-in-need) and recruiting thousands of needed donors (Fig. D). Conclusion: We describe the first COP in stem cell donor recruitment to our knowledge. The COP was valued by participants and supported efforts to improve donor recruitment. The COP model can be adapted by donor recruitment organizations around the world to improve recruitment outcomes. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,044
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,158
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,949

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0440,049
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0150,005
Communication savante0,0060,002
Science ouverte0,0060,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,385
Tête enseignante GPT0,436
Écart entre enseignants0,050 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→Travaux en français237 207→