A Rapid Process for Identifying and Prioritizing Technology-Based Tools for Health System Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health system decisions to put new technologies into clinical practice require a rapid and trustworthy decision-making process informed by best evidence. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present a rapid evidence review process that can be used to inform health system leaders and clinicians seeking to implement new technology tools to improve patient-clinician decision making and patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: The rapid evidence review process we pioneered involved 5 sequential subprocesses: (1) environmental scan, (2) expert panel recruitment, (3) host evidence review panel, (4) analysis, and (5) local validation panel. We conducted an environmental scan of health information technology (IT) literature to identify relevant digital tools in oncology care. We synthesized the recent literature using current evidence review methods, creating visual summaries for use by a national panel of experts. Panelists were taken through a 6-hour modified Delphi process to prioritize tools for implementation. Findings from the rapid evidence review panel were taken to a local validation panel for further rapid review during a 3-hour session. RESULTS: Our rapid evidence review process shows promise for informing decision making by reducing the amount of time and resources needed to identify and prioritize adoption of IT tools. Despite evidence of improved patient outcomes, panelists had substantial concerns about implementing patient-reported outcome tracking tools, voicing concerns about liability, lack of familiarity with new technology, and additional time and workflow changes such tools would require. Instead, clinicians favored technologies that did not require clinician involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Health system leaders can use the rapid evidence review process presented here to usefully inform local technology adoption, implementation, and use in practice.
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 | 0.446 | 0.497 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".