Integrated Knowledge Translation with Public Health Policy Makers: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies typically did not distinguish between different kinds of knowledge users, making it impossible to comment specifically on decision-makers' involvement.Authors believed knowledge user involvement was beneficial to the quality and potential impact of research activities, although corroborating evaluation data were unavailable.Broad research-knowledge user partnerships spanning multiple projects, as well as flexible involvement of knowledge users, enhanced engagement and supported the iKT process. RésuméL' application des connaissances intégrée (ACi) est une approche qui met à contribution les utilisateurs des connaissances (p.ex., responsables de politiques, cliniciens, patients) en tant que participants actifs au processus de recherche.Théoriquement, ce type de participation accroît la pertinence et l' utilité de la recherche, ce qui favorise le changement dans le système de santé.Toutefois, il y a un manque de données pour étayer les pratiques exemplaires en ACi, en particulier dans le contexte de la santé publique ainsi qu' auprès des décideurs des milieux autres que cliniques.L' objectif de cet examen est, dans un premier lieu, de rendre compte de la façon dont est décrite la participation des décideurs dans les recherches qui mettent en pratique l' ACi et, ensuite, de voir dans quelle mesure le processus a été évalué.Nous avons mené un examen de la portée de la littérature publiée entre janvier 2005 et décembre 2017, puis nous avons extrait les renseignements liés à la participation, aux obstacles, aux facteurs favorables et aux résultats de l' ACi.Les études considérées ne font pas nécessairement la distinction entre les divers types d' utilisateurs des connaissances, ce qui rend impossible un compte rendu sur la participation particulière des décideurs.Les auteurs estiment que la participation des utilisateurs des connaissances présente un avantage pour la qualité et l'impact potentiel des activités de recherche, bien que les données venant corroborer ce fait ne soient pas disponibles.De vaste partenariats multi-projets réunissant chercheurs et utilisateurs des connaissances, de même qu' une flexibilité dans la participation des utilisateurs des connaissances, permettraient d' améliorer l' engagement et d' appuyer les processus de l' ACi.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | Scholarly communicationMetaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.070 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".