MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915558112 · doi:10.1002/pds.4738

Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies

2019· article· en· W2915558112 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ingrid Sketris, Nancy Carter, Robyn Traynor, Dorian Watts, Kim Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsIWK FoundationHealth Research FoundationNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaNova Scotia Health Research FoundationGovernment of Canada
KeywordsStakeholderKnowledge translationObservational studyContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementLogic modelStakeholder analysisPharmacoepidemiologyMedicineComputer scienceManagement scienceProcess managementBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), a network of pharmacoepidemiologists and other researchers from seven provincial sites, provides evidence on the benefits and risks of drugs used by Canadians. The Knowledge Translation Team, one of CNODES' four main teams, evaluates the impact of its efforts using an iterative and emergent approach. This article shares key lessons from early evaluation phases, including identifying stakeholders and their evaluation needs, choosing evaluation theories and approaches, and developing evaluation questions, designs, and methods appropriate for the CNODES context. METHODS: Stakeholder analysis was conducted using documentary analysis to determine key contextual factors and research evidence needs of decision maker partners and other stakeholders. Selected theories and frameworks from the evaluation and knowledge translation literature informed decisions about evaluation design and implementation. A developmental approach to evaluation was deemed appropriate due to the innovative, complex, and ever-changing context. RESULTS: A theory of change, logic model, and potential evaluation questions were developed, informed by the stakeholder analysis. Early indicators of program impact (citation metrics, alternative metrics) have been documented; efforts to collect data on additional indicators are ongoing. CONCLUSION: A flexible, iterative, and emergent evaluation approach allows the Knowledge Translation Team to apply lessons learned from completed projects to ongoing research projects, adapt its approaches based on stakeholder needs, document successes, and be accountable to funders/stakeholders. This evaluation approach may be useful for other international pharmacoepidemiology research networks planning and implementing evaluations of similarly complex, multistakeholder initiatives that are subject to constant change.

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)0.713
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.611
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7130.611
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0320.024
Science and technology studies0.0200.037
Scholarly communication0.0310.021
Open science0.0130.022
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.788
GPT teacher head0.712
Teacher spread0.077 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207