The Canadian True NTH Initiative: A multisite intervention to improve the lives of men with prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
118 Background: The True NTH Initiative aims to improve the lives and experiences of men with prostate cancer, as well as those of their partners, family and caregivers. In Canada, Prostate Cancer Canada selected ten teams to develop, implement and evaluate evidence-informed programs focusing on decision support, clinical support, lifestyle management, education, social support, navigation and treatment follow-up. Project teams were encouraged to align their local evaluations with a common evaluation framework and a national evaluation plan was developed. The aim of this abstract is to share methodology and early results of a multi-level evaluation that will address a range of programs designed to improve the lives of men with prostate cancer. True NTH is funded globally by the Movember Foundation, and operates in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Singapore. Methods: Projects (Solutions) selected for the initiative had existing evidence for their efficacy. Project teams were responsible for designing the implementation of their Solution and an appropriate evaluation. Local and national evaluations used a recognized framework (RE-AIM) to systematically study the real world uptake of these interventions, focusing on questions of Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Project teams provide quarterly narrative updates and annual written reports with quantitative measures and narrative components. Key informant interviews with project leads will complete the final national evaluation. Results: To date, projects have generated learning across different provincial health systems, academic institutions and community settings. Teams have learned to address challenges of participant recruitment and project endorsement, and have begun to appreciate the benefits of collaboration. Teams have also reflected on the importance of engaging clinicians in the implementation of their Solutions for effective uptake and sustainability. Conclusions: The results of the ongoing multi-level evaluation continue to provide insight into real world implementation of evidence-informed programs and the critical factors that enable their effectiveness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".