MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958366292 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25860

Achieving the Goals of Dementia Plans: A Review of Evidence-Informed Implementation Strategies

2019· review· en· W2958366292 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew Hacker Teper, Claire Godard‐Sebillotte, Isabelle Vedel

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPlan (archaeology)Key (lock)Political sciencePublic administrationPsychologyMedicinePublic relationsComputer scienceGeographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 2019 report by the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences identified the importance of evidence-informed implementation strategies in reforming dementia care. Such implementation strategies may be relevant to changing clinical practice in the wake of Canada's impending federal dementia plan (initiated by Bill C-233). As this federal dementia plan is elaborated, there may be value in looking ahead to some of the implementation challenges likely to be faced "on the ground" in healthcare settings. We thus conducted a rapid review of provincial and national dementia plans from high-income countries and reviewed studies on implementation strategies to dementia care. We advance seven key implementation strategies that may be useful for future dementia care reform.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.883
GPT teacher head0.778
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207