MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145042863 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn080

Bringing important research evidence into practice: Canadian developments

2008· article· en· W2145042863 on OpenAlexaffabout
W W Rosser

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineBest practiceEvidence-based practiceClinical PracticeMedical educationEvidence-based medicineMEDLINEFamily medicineAlternative medicineManagementPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The transfer of evidence from research into clinical practice is made almost impossible by enormous volume of literature on any topic. Consolidated evidence into guidelines is not very helpful as there are usually 50 guidelines existing on common clinical topics. Clinicians need assistance in identifying the best available evidence. This paper describes two strategies to transfer research evidence into clinical practice. METHODS: The Guideline Advisory Committee (GAC) in Ontario has assessed all available guidelines on 70 clinical topics using a validated and transparent process involving community-based physicians as assessors. A single best guideline is selected and a summary of its evidence-based recommendations are produced for easy use by practitioners (http://www.gacguidelines.ca). The Critically Appraised Practice Reflection Exercise (CAPRE) programme takes the best available evidence on 40 common practice problems, presents a summary for clinician and patient, has a strategy for physician and patient to find common ground in applying the evidence and has the practitioner to carry out a reflection exercise to gain continuing education credits (http://www.capre.ca). Distribution of these strategies in practice-based research networks is a further step in making research more relevant to practice. RESULTS: The GAC website has more than 100,000 'hits' per month and 4500 identified regular users from Canada and the world. The numbers are steadily increasing. The CAPRE programme has not been formally evaluated but over 150 clinicians have used the programme with patients. With a national launch, the programme there between 60,000 and 80,000 hits per week with 100 physicians completing the programme for continuing medical education (CME) credits in the first month. Physicians report that their patients are very pleased with their physician using the latest evidence to address their problem. This is true even if the patient does not agree to follow the evidence-based recommendations. Using these programmes in practice-based research, networks should further promote making research more relevant to practice. CONCLUSIONS: Transferring research-based evidence into clinical practice has many challenges. Two programmes developed to address these challenges are described. Although not fully evaluated, there is some evidence of success.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.537
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.085 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207