MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162138305 · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-6

Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results

2013· article· en· W2162138305 on OpenAlexaff
Shaun Treweek, Andrew D Oxman, Philip Alderson, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Linn Brandt, Jan Brożek, Marina Davoli, Signe Flottorp, Robin Harbour, Suzanne Hill, Alessandro Liberati, Helena Liira, Holger J. Schünemann, Sarah Rosenbaum, Judith Thornton, Per Olav Vandvik, Pablo Alonso‐Coello

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderHealth careProtocol (science)MedicineGuidelineGrading (engineering)Health informaticsQuality (philosophy)Health administrationEvidence-based practicePublic relationsPublic healthKnowledge managementNursingComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. METHODS: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. DISCUSSION: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

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)0.249
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.353
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2490.353
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.017

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 head0.672
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.016 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations200
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplementation ScienceSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207