Cognitive and Social Issues in Emergency Medicine Knowledge Translation: A Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The individual practitioner is a linchpin in the process of translating new knowledge into practice, particularly in the emergency department, where physician autonomy is high, resources are limited, and decision-making situations are complex. An understanding of the cognitive and social processes that affect knowledge translation (KT) in emergency medicine (EM) is crucial and at present understudied. As part of the 2007 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on KT in EM, our group sought to identify key research areas that would inform our understanding of these cognitive and social processes. We combined an online discussion group of interdisciplinary stakeholders, an extensive review of the existing literature, and a "public hearing" of the recommendations at the Consensus Conference to establish relative preference for the recommendations, as well as their relevance and clarity to attendees. We identified five key research areas as follows. 1) What provider-specific barriers/facilitators to the use of new knowledge are relevant in the EM setting? 2) Can social psychological theories of behavior change be used to develop better KT interventions for EM? 3) Can the study of "distributed cognition" suggest new vehicles for KT in the emergency department? 4) Can the concept of dual-process reasoning inform our understanding of the KT process? 5) Can patient-specific, immediate feedback serve as a vehicle for KT in EM? We believe that exploring these key research questions will directly lead to improved KT interventions and to further discussion of the cognitive and social factors impacting KT in EM.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".