Pre-implementation knowledge tool development for health services providers: A qualitative study of Canadian social workers
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
Recent research has shown that social workers are particularly well placed to disseminate information about health-related social programs such as Canada’s Compassionate Care Benefit (CCB). Low uptake of the CCB may be due, in part, to a lack of knowledge. In response to this, we report on the development of CCB knowledge tools aimed specifically at social workers. Social worker-specific tools about the CCB were developed through a multi-step process. Using a computer-based qualitative messaging survey ( n = 16), social workers chose what they determined to be the most important messages needed to gain knowledge about the CCB. Using these chosen messages, draft tools were created and then refined for content and aesthetics using a focus group ( n = 8) and information from key informant interviews ( n = 3). Further research is needed to evaluate tool implementation effectiveness and use in practice. This study contributes to the understanding of knowledge translation strategies specific to social workers, and particularly those working in end-of-life settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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