MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013795988 · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0545-8

A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices

2020· article· en· W3013795988 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristine Newman, Ryan DeForge, Dwayne Van Eerd, Yan Wei Mok, Evelyn Cornelissen

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of WindsorUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsHealth administrationHealth services researchPublic healthHealth informaticsPsychologyNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between researchers and decision-makers to facilitate the latter's use of evidence in health promotion and the provision of healthcare. Despite knowledge brokering being well-established in Canada, many knowledge gaps exist, including understanding what theoretical frameworks have been developed and which evaluative practices knowledge brokers (KBs) use. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods design to examine how KBs in Canada (1) use frameworks, models and theories in their practice and (2) how they evaluate knowledge brokering interventions. We gathered interview and survey data from KB practitioners to better understand their perspectives on effective practices. Our analysis focused on understanding the theoretical frameworks used by KBs. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that KBs in Canada tend not to rely on theories or models that are specific to knowledge brokering. Rather, study participants/respondents draw on (sometimes multiple) theories and models that are fundamental to the broader field of knowledge translation - in particular, the Knowledge to Action model and the Promoting Action Research in Health Sciences framework. In evaluating the impact of their own knowledge brokering practice, participants/respondents use a wide variety of mechanisms. Evaluation was often seen as less important than supporting knowledge users and/or paying clients in accessing and utilising evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge brokering as a form of knowledge translation continues to expand, but the impact on its targeted knowledge users has yet to be clearly established. The quality of engagement between KBs and their clients might increase - the knowledge brokering can be more impactful - if KBs made efforts to describe, understand and evaluate their activities using theories or models specific to KB.

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)0.222
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2220.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.935
GPT teacher head0.793
Teacher spread0.142 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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