MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128808168 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002970

Sustainability of knowledge translation interventions in healthcare decision-making: protocol for a scoping review

2013· review· en· W2128808168 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea C. Tricco, Elise Cogo, Huda Ashoor, Laure Perrier, K. Ann McKibbon, Jeremy Grimshaw, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSustainabilityKnowledge translationHealth carePsychological interventionProtocol (science)Engineering ethicsAlternative medicineNursingKnowledge managementPathologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation (KT also known as research utilisation, translational medicine and implementation science) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health. After the implementation of KT interventions, their impact on relevant outcomes should be monitored. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) conduct a systematic search of the literature to identify the impact on healthcare outcomes beyond 1 year, or beyond the termination of funding of the initiative of KT interventions targeting chronic disease management for end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers; (2) identify factors that influence sustainability of effective KT interventions; (3) identify how sustained change from KT interventions should be measured; and (4) develop a framework for assessing sustainability of KT interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of funding agencies and websites of healthcare provider organisations will be conducted to identify relevant material. We will include experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies providing information on the sustainability of KT interventions targeting chronic disease management in adults and focusing on end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction form. They will then screen all citations, full articles and abstract data in duplicate independently. The results of the scoping review will be synthesised descriptively and used to develop a framework to assess the sustainability of KT interventions. DISCUSSION AND DISSEMINATION: Our results will help inform end-users (ie, patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions. Our dissemination plan includes publications, presentations, website posting and a stakeholder meeting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0160.020
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.024

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.

Opus teacher head0.926
GPT teacher head0.837
Teacher spread0.089 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207