MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006359455 · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0494-2

Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool: A decision support tool for health policy makers and implementers

2020· article· en· W3006359455 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Milat, Karen Lee, Kathleen Conte, Anne Grunseit, Luke Wolfenden, Femke van Nassau, Neil Orr, Padmaja Sreeram, Adrian Bauman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNSW Ministry of HealthAustralian GovernmentACT Government
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionScale (ratio)Health services researchFidelityHealth policyPopulation healthIntervention (counseling)MedicineProcess managementPublic healthComputer scienceNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Promising health interventions tested in pilot studies will only achieve population-wide impact if they are implemented at scale across communities and health systems. Scaling up effective health interventions is vital as not doing so denies the community the most effective services and programmes. However, there remains a paucity of practical tools to assess the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. The Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT) was developed to support policy-makers and practitioners to make systematic assessments of the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. METHODS: The ISAT was developed over three stages; the first stage involved a literature review to identify similar tools and frameworks that could be used to guide scalability assessments, and expert input to develop draft ISAT content. In the second stage, the draft ISAT tool was tested with end users. The third stage involved revising and re-testing the ISAT with end users to further refine the language and structure of the final ISAT. RESULTS: A variety of information and sources of evidence should be used to complete the ISAT. The ISAT consists of three parts. Part A: 'setting the scene' requires consideration of the context in which the intervention is being considered for scale-up and consists of five domains, as follows: (1) the problem; (2) the intervention; (3) strategic/political context; (4) evidence of effectiveness; and (5) intervention costs and benefits. Part B asks users to assess the potential implementation and scale-up requirements within five domains, namely (1) fidelity and adaptation; (2) reach and acceptability; (3) delivery setting and workforce; (4) implementation infrastructure; and (5) sustainability. Part C generates a graphical representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the readiness of the proposed intervention for scale-up. Users are also prompted for a recommendation as to whether the intervention (1) is recommended for scale-up, (2) is promising but needs further information before scaling up, or (3) does not yet merit scale-up. CONCLUSION: The ISAT fills an important gap in applied scalability assessment and can become a critical decision support tool for policy-makers and practitioners when selecting health interventions for scale-up. Although the ISAT is designed to be a health policy and practitioner tool, it can also be used by researchers in the design of research to fill important evidence gaps.

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)0.239
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.476
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2390.476
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.017
Open science0.0080.014
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.016

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 head0.815
GPT teacher head0.768
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations247
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207