International comparison and review of a health technology assessment skills program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A review of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research's (AHFMR) 6-month Health Technology Skills Development Program was undertaken within an international context with the purpose of describing and assessing the current program, further formalizing the program based on identified opportunities for improvement, and enhancing collaborative linkages with other agencies. The objectives of the review were to (i) compare the AHFMR program with similar programs in other health technology assessment (HTA) agencies internationally; (ii) assess the value of the program; (iii) identify program strengths and opportunities for improvement; and (iv) review, critique, and recommend enhancements to the program model and role description. METHODS: The review involved a qualitative study design that included a survey of the Skills Development Program participants' experience and perceptions; semistructured interviews with program stakeholders, and a written survey of HTA agencies/programs in other Canadian and international jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: The review concluded that the program was successful and valued by participants, the Foundation, and stakeholders in the policy and research communities. Findings suggest participant products have a potential for broad influence, including impact on funding decisions related to technology diffusion, influence through publications and presentations, and knowledge transfer in the participants' disciplines and employment settings. The main opportunity for enhancement was to differentiate the program into two streams according to different needs of participants, specifically between those who desire to be HTA producers and/or make HTA their careers, and those who desire to apply HTA in their employment capacity as policy or clinical decision-makers.
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 | 0.047 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".