Implementing a shared decision‐making and cognitive strategy‐based intervention: Knowledge user perspectives and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to employ knowledge user perspectives to develop recommendations that facilitate implementation of a complex, shared decision-making (SDM)-based intervention in an interprofessional setting. This study was part of a larger knowledge translation (KT) study in which interprofessional teams from five freestanding, academically affiliated, rehabilitation hospitals were tasked with implementing a cognitive strategy-based intervention approach that incorporates SDM known as Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) to treat survivors of stroke. At the end of the 4-month CO-OP KT implementation support period, 10 clinicians, two from each site, volunteered as CO-OP site champions. A semi-structured focus group was conducted with 10 site champions 3 months following the implementation support period. To meet the study objective, an exploratory qualitative research design was used. The focus group session was audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed through the lens of the integrated promoting action on research implementation in health services (iPARIHS) framework. The focus group participants (n = 8) consisted of occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech language pathologists. Ten recommendations for CO-OP implementation were extracted and co-constructed from the focus group transcript. The recommendations reflected all four iPARHIS constructs: Facilitation, Context, Innovation, and Recipients. Implementation recommendations, from the knowledge user perspective, highlight that context-specific facilitation is key to integrating a novel, complex intervention into interprofessional practice. Facilitators should lay out a framework for training, communication and implementation that is structured but still provides flexibility for iterative learning and active problem-solving within the relevant practice context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".