MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896864241 · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0374-1

Knowledge translation for realist reviews: a participatory approach for a review on scaling up complex interventions

2018· review· en· W2896864241 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Boyko, Barbara Riley, Cameron D. Willis, Lisa Stockton, Dana Zummach, Jon Kerner, Kerry Robinson, Marie C. Chia

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaCanadian Partnership Against CancerImpactUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsHealth services researchKnowledge translationPsychological interventionHealth administrationPublic healthCitizen journalismMedicineHealth informaticsKnowledge managementComputer scienceNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge syntheses that use a realist methodology are gaining popularity. Yet, there are few reports in the literature that describe how results are summarised, shared and used. This paper aims to inform knowledge translation (KT) for realist reviews by describing the process of developing a KT strategy for a review on pathways for scaling up complex public health interventions. METHODS: The participatory approach used for the realist review was also used to develop the KT strategy. The approach included three main steps, namely (1) an international meeting focused on interpreting preliminary findings from the realist review and seeking input on KT activities; (2) a targeted literature review on KT for realist reviews; and (3) consultations with primary knowledge users of the review. RESULTS: The international meeting identified a general preference among knowledge users for findings from the review that are action oriented. A need was also identified for understanding how to tailor findings for specific knowledge user groups in relation to their needs. The literature review identified four papers that included brief descriptions of planned or actual KT activities for specific research studies; however, information was minimal on what KT activities or products work for whom, under what conditions and why. The consultations revealed that KT for realist reviews should consider the following: (1) activities closely aligned with the preferences of specific knowledge user groups; (2) key findings that are sensitive to factors within the knowledge user's context; and (3) actionable statements that can advance KT goals, activities or products. The KT strategy derived from the three activities includes a planning framework and tailored KT activities that address preferences of knowledge users for findings that are action oriented and context relevant. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides an example of a KT strategy for realist reviews that blends theoretical and practical insights. Evaluation of the strategy's implementation will provide useful insights on its effectiveness and potential for broader application.

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 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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.995
GPT teacher head0.850
Teacher spread0.145 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207