MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135462141 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2013.21233

The Value of Performance Measurement in Promoting Improvements in Women's Health

2009· article· en· W2135462141 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Emily Siu, Carey Levinton, Adalsteinn Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Health careSociologyKnowledge translationSocial sciencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEngineeringLawKnowledge managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the factors associated with the use and impact of performance data relevant to women's health. METHODS: We developed a survey on six levels of information use based on Knott and Wildavsky's (1980) policy utilization framework and used this survey to determine Ontario hospital administrators' use of women's health report indicators. We related responses to this survey to six potentially relevant organizational factors, such as women's health as a written hospital priority, a women's health program and hospital budget size, using correlation and multiple-regression analysis. RESULTS: Only women's health in a written hospital priority (p=0.01) and hospital budget (p=0.02, log transformed) were significantly associated with the highest level of use when all organizational factors were considered. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the use of women's health performance indicators is strongly related to the size of the hospital budget and to organizational commitment to women's health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207