An innovation procurement clinical framework: A qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation Procurement Strategies (IPS) strive for purchasing healthcare solutions that do not yet exist on the market and are increasingly being advocated to improve health outcomes while managing escalating healthcare costs. Due to the newness of IPS, there are limited resources available to healthcare organizations and professionals looking to engage in IPS. The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based clinical framework to guide healthcare organizations and professionals. Adopting a qualitative grounded theory approach, we interviewed participants with experience in innovation procurement to understand the skills, resources, and supports needed to initiate and oversee an IPS project. Using thematic design and open coding, three overarching themes emerged from the data and formed the basis of our IPS clinical framework. By describing the components, skills, and supports and resources necessary for engaging in IPS, our framework addresses the knowledge gap in healthcare organizations and professionals wishing to implement IPS.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it