MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990172424 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25981

Training for Health System Improvement: Emerging Lessons from Canadian and US Approaches to Embedded Fellowships

2019· article· en· W2990172424 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Meghan McMahon, Stephen Bornstein, Adalsteinn Brown, Lisa Simpson, Lucy A. Savitz, Robyn Tamblyn

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningHealthcare systemHealth policyMedical educationPolitical scienceHealth carePublic relationsMedicinePsychologyPublic healthNursingPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of supporting experiential learning for improved health and societal outcomes have been recognized in many countries.A number of funding organizations have developed competitive funding opportunities to support experiential learning in health system organizations outside of the traditional university setting.AcademyHealth in the US is an early innovator that pioneered the Delivery System Science Fellowship (DSSF) and inspired Canada' s creation of the Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program.The DSSF and HSI Fellowship have similar objectives: to improve the career readiness of doctorally prepared graduates and to build research capacity within health system organizations.However, the programs have taken different approaches to achieve these objectives and operate in different healthcare systems.This paper outlines the two models of embedded fellowships, analyzes their commonalities and differences, discusses lessons learned and suggests future directions for health services and policy research training. RésuméPlusieurs pays reconnaissent les bienfaits de l' apprentissage expérientiel pour améliorer les résultats dans la société et dans les systèmes de santé.Certains organismes subventionnaires ont développé des possibilités de financement afin d' appuyer l' apprentissage expérientiel dans des organismes de santé en dehors des établissements universitaires habituels.Aux États-Unis, l' organisme AcademyHealth a mis au point le Delivery System Science Fellowship (DSSF), qui à son tour a inspiré la création, au Canada, du Programme des bourses d' apprentissage en matière d'impact sur le système de santé (BAIS).Ces deux programmes ont des objectifs similaires : améliorer l' aptitude à la carrière des titulaires de doctorat et accroître la capacité de recherche dans les établissements de santé.Cependant, ces programmes se déroulent dans des systèmes de santé distincts et ont pris des tangentes différentes pour atteindre leurs objectifs.Cet article présente les deux modèles de bourses enchâssées, analyse leurs similitudes et différences, discute des leçons retenues et propose des pistes d' orientation en matière de formation en recherche sur les politiques et les services de santé.T

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0160.023
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207