Involving Stakeholders in Healthcare Decisions - The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appeal to "stakeholders" and involving them in decisions and the processes through which decisions are made are becoming touch stones of "best practice," both clinical and managerial, in health care. Few organizations have sought to integrate stakeholders, especially patients and their caregivers, more completely than the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. This article outlines the circumstances in which NICE was created (1999) and the means through which it has created truly effective involvement of its many stakeholder groups. Key messages are that client involvement in decision-making is possible and can work well, but it demands commitment from the entire organization, specific managerial arrangements and, depending on the circumstances, it can be costly. Trust is an important ingredient of success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it