005 OP: ON THE NEED FOR PRACTICE THEORIES IN HEALTH SERVICES AND POLICY RESEARCH: LESSONS FROM QUALITATIVE INQUIRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers in the fields of health services and policy generally focus on optimizing the organization and practice of health care in order to ensure best possible outcomes for patients and the public. This broad mandate variably entails evaluating the feasibility of new service delivery models, devising interventions that achieve better outcomes, and studying populations to tailor specific health care initiatives and programs. Implied in these various foci of health services and policy research is a normative logic of implementation, which can be formulated something like this: If researchers find the truth, then practitioners should use it. However, the widely discussed and longstanding “gap” between evidence and practice strongly suggests that this “logic” of implementation must not be very logical at all. In this paper I suggest that the lack of “uptake” of research findings in practice provides a gateway to elaborating on two key conceptual issues in health services and policy research. The first issue is regarding what constitutes knowledge in everyday health care practice, otherwise known as epistemologies of practice. The second issue, building on the first, is regarding how the practice of health care providers actually comes to be and thus how it can be changed. Understanding the knowledge and practice of health care providers requires an understanding of practice in its broadest theoretical sense, as the coordinated activities of everyday experience through which our ongoing lives derive their meaning. Drawing on the findings of a comparative qualitative case study of transitions from hospital to home in London, UK and Toronto, Canada, I will illustrate how conceptual advances in theories of practice provide great insight into (a) the knowledge that health care providers create and use in their everyday practice, (b) why health care is practiced exactly the way it is, and (c) how it might be changed for the better. Demonstrating the value of insights from qualitative applications of practice theories, as demonstrated by the qualitative findings presented in this paper, I call for a shift toward the more systematic use of practice theories in health services and policy research.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.126 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.112 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".