Knowledge Translation and Barriers to Imaging Optimization in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have attempted to optimize imaging utilization by describing which clinical variables are more predictive of acute disease and, conversely, what combination of variables can obviate the need for imaging. These results are then used to develop evidence-based clinical pathways, clinical decision instruments, and clinical practice guidelines. Despite the validation of these results in subsequent studies, with some demonstrating improved outcomes, their actual use is often limited. This article outlines a research agenda to promote the dissemination and implementation (also known as knowledge translation) of evidence-based interventions for emergency department (ED) imaging, i.e., clinical pathways, clinical decision instruments, and clinical practice guidelines. We convened a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders and held online and telephone discussions over a 6-month period culminating in an in-person meeting at the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference. We identified the following four overarching research questions: 1) what determinants (barriers and facilitators) influence emergency physicians' use of evidence-based interventions when ordering imaging in the ED; 2) what implementation strategies at the institutional level can improve the use of evidence-based interventions for ED imaging; 3) what interventions at the health care policy level can facilitate the adoption of evidence-based interventions for ED imaging; and 4) how can health information technology, including electronic health records, clinical decision support, and health information exchanges, be used to increase awareness, use, and adherence to evidence-based interventions for ED imaging? Advancing research that addresses these questions will provide valuable information as to how we can use evidence-based interventions to optimize imaging utilization and ultimately improve patient care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.262 | 0.490 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".