MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1789084578 · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0325-y

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol

2015· article· en· W1789084578 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityWomen's College HospitalMinistry of Health and Long Term CareOttawa HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity College LondonMcGill UniversityMonash UniversityInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsContext (archaeology)CLARITYHealth carePsychological interventionHealth services researchHealth administrationMedicineQualitative researchProtocol (science)Health informaticsKnowledge managementMedical educationNursingComputer sciencePublic healthSociologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that "context" can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises "context" is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-phased investigation of context using mixed methods will be conducted. The first phase is a concept analysis of context using the Walker and Avant method to distinguish between the defining and irrelevant attributes of context. This phase will result in a preliminary framework for context that identifies its important domains and their features according to the published literature. The second phase is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from 13 studies of interviews with 312 healthcare professionals on the perceived barriers and enablers to their application of research evidence in clinical practice. These data will be analyzed inductively using constant comparative analysis. For the third phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key health system stakeholders and change agents to elicit their knowledge and beliefs about the contextual features that influence the effectiveness of implementation interventions and healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice. Results from all three phases will be synthesized using a triangulation protocol to refine the context framework drawn from the concept analysis. The framework will then be assessed for content validity using an iterative Delphi approach with international experts (researchers and health system stakeholders/change agents). DISCUSSION: This research program will result in a framework that identifies the domains of context and their features that can facilitate or hinder: (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The framework will increase the conceptual clarity of the term "context" for advancing implementation science, improving healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice, and providing greater understanding of what interventions are likely to be effective in which contexts.

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.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.799
GPT teacher head0.789
Teacher spread0.010 · 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