MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508474559 · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9

Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies

2015· review· en· W2508474559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPan American Health OrganizationMinistério da SaúdeMcMaster University
KeywordsOperationalizationManagement scienceEvidence-based practiceHealth administrationHealth informaticsEvidence-based medicineBest practiceHealth services researchMedicineSystematic reviewProcess managementComputer sciencePublic healthMEDLINENursingAlternative medicinePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to inform the design of a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice for the Americas region. Specifically, we focus on the following: (1) What are the best methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence? (2) What other strategies are needed to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice? and (3) How best to operationalize a rapid response program? METHODS: The evidence used to inform the design of a rapid response program included (i) two rapid reviews of methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence and strategies to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making, (ii) supplementary literature in relation to the "shortcuts" that could be considered to reduce the time needed to complete rapid reviews, (iii) four case studies, and (iv) supplementary literature to identify additional operational issues for the design of the program. RESULTS: There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting them. Better reporting of rapid review methods is needed. The literature found in relation to shortcuts will be helpful in choosing shortcuts that maximize timeliness while minimizing the impact on quality. Evidence for other strategies that can be used concurrently to facilitate the uptake of research evidence, including evidence drawn from rapid reviews, is presented. Operational issues that need to be considered in designing a rapid response program include the implications of a "user-pays" model, the importance of recruiting staff with the right mix of skills and qualifications, and ensuring that the impact of the model on research use in decision-making is formally evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: When designing a new rapid response program, greater attention needs to be given to specifying the rapid review methods and reporting these in sufficient detail to allow a quality assessment. It will also be important to engage in other strategies to facilitate the uptake of the rapid reviews and to evaluate the chosen model in order to make refinements and add to the evidence base for evidence-informed decision-making.

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.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.946
GPT teacher head0.802
Teacher spread0.144 · 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