MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782287140 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190732

Determinants of knowledge translation from health technology assessment to policy-making in China: From the perspective of researchers

2018· article· en· W2782287140 on OpenAlexaff
Wenbin Liu, Lizheng Shi, Raymond Pong, Hengjin Dong, Yiwei Mao, Meng Tang, Yingyao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersChina Medical Board
KeywordsChinaHealth technologyKnowledge translationMedicinePolitical scienceKnowledge managementHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For health technology assessment (HTA) to be more policy relevant and for health technology-related decision-making to be truly evidence-based, promoting knowledge translation (KT) is of vital importance. Although some research has focused on KT of HTA, there is a dearth of literature on KT determinants and the situation in developing countries and transitional societies remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the determinants of HTA KT from research to health policy-making from the perspective of researchers in China. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A structured questionnaire which focused on KT was distributed to HTA researchers in China. KT activity levels in various fields of HTA research were compared, using one-way ANOVA. Principal component analysis was performed to provide a basis to combine similar variables. To investigate the determinants of KT level, multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Based on a survey of 382 HTA researchers, it was found that HTA KT wasn't widespread in China. Furthermore, results showed that no significant differences existed between the various HTA research fields. Factors, such as attitudes of researchers toward HTA and evidence utilization, academic ranks and linkages between researchers and policy-makers, had significant impact on HTA KT (p-values<0.05). Additionally, collaboration between HTA researchers and policy-makers, policy-relevance of HTA research, practicality of HTA outcomes and making HTA reports easier to understand also contributed to predicting KT level. However, academic nature of HTA research was negatively associated with KT level. CONCLUSION: KT from HTA to policy-making was influenced by many factors. Of particular importance were collaborations between researchers and policy-makers, ensuring policy relevance of HTA and making HTA evidence easier to understand by potential users.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.606
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207