MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273108929 · doi:10.1111/jep.12510

Case study of evaluations that go beyond clinical outcomes to assess quality improvement diabetes programmes using the <scp>D</scp>iabetes <scp>E</scp>valuation <scp>F</scp>ramework for <scp>I</scp>nnovative <scp>N</scp>ational <scp>E</scp>valuations (<scp>DEFINE</scp>)

2016· article· en· W2273108929 on OpenAlexaff
Jann Paquette‐Warren, Stewart B. Harris, Mariam Naqshbandi Hayward, Jordan W. Tompkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family MedicineWestern University
FundersSanofi
KeywordsValuation (finance)Knowledge translationKnowledge managementProcess managementHealth careQuality (philosophy)Management scienceBusinessMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Investments in efforts to reduce the burden of diabetes on patients and health care are critical; however, more evaluation is needed to provide evidence that informs and supports future policies and programmes. The newly developed Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE) incorporates the theoretical concepts needed to facilitate the capture of critical information to guide investments, policy and programmatic decision making. The aim of the study is to assess the applicability and value of DEFINE in comprehensive real-world evaluation. METHOD: Using a critical and positivist approach, this intrinsic and collective case study retrospectively examines two naturalistic evaluations to demonstrate how DEFINE could be used when conducting real-world comprehensive evaluations in health care settings. RESULTS: The variability between the cases and the evaluation designs are described and aligned to the DEFINE goals, steps and sub-steps. The majority of the theoretical steps of DEFINE were exemplified in both cases, although limited for knowledge translation efforts. Application of DEFINE to evaluate diverse programmes that target various chronic diseases is needed to further test the inclusivity and built-in flexibility of DEFINE and its role in encouraging more comprehensive knowledge translation. CONCLUSIONS: This case study shows how DEFINE could be used to structure or guide comprehensive evaluations of programmes and initiatives implemented in health care settings and support scale-up of successful innovations. Future use of the framework will continue to strengthen its value in guiding programme evaluation and informing health policy to reduce the burden of diabetes and other chronic diseases.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207