Ottawa Model of Implementation Leadership and Implementation Leadership Scale: mapping concepts for developing and evaluating theory-based leadership interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leadership in health care is instrumental to creating a supportive organizational environment and positive staff attitudes for implementing evidence-based practices to improve patient care and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the alignment of the Ottawa Model of Implementation Leadership (O-MILe), a theoretical model for developing implementation leadership, with the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS), an empirically validated tool for measuring implementation leadership. A secondary objective is to describe the methodological process for aligning concepts of a theoretical model with an independently established measurement tool for evaluating theory-based interventions. METHODS: Modified template analysis was conducted to deductively map items of the ILS onto concepts of the O-MILe. An iterative process was used in which the model and scale developers (n=5) appraised the relevance, conceptual clarity, and fit of each ILS items with the O-MILe concepts through individual feedback and group discussions until consensus was reached. RESULTS: All 12 items of the ILS correspond to at least one O-MILe concept, demonstrating compatibility of the ILS as a measurement tool for the O-MILe theoretical constructs. CONCLUSION: The O-MILe provides a theoretical basis for developing implementation leadership, and the ILS is a compatible tool for measuring leadership based on the O-MILe. Used together, the O-MILe and ILS provide an evidence- and theory-based approach for developing and measuring leadership for implementing evidence-based practices in health care. Template analysis offers a convenient approach for determining the compatibility of independently developed evaluation tools to test theoretical models.
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 | 0.047 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".