MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091945448 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.1216

Advancing in the institutionalization of Evidence-Informed Policy in Brazil

2020· article· en· W3091945448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André Lúcio Bento, Gustavo Martínez Valdés, Ana Paula Duarte de Souza, Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationEvidence-based practiceKnowledge translationPublic relationsEvidence-based policyBusinessScientific evidencePolitical scienceNursingMedicineKnowledge managementAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract EVIPNet Brazil was launched in 2007, coordinated by the Ministry of Health. Its expansion has promoted the institutionalization of a national knowledge translation platform, and has also been active at the local level. Local Health Evidence Labs were implemented to institucionalize working groups linked to EVIPNet. In this multiple case study, we discuss the advances in the institutionalization of Evidence-Informed Policy-making in Brazil, based on a mapping of the Health Evidence Labs' institutional capacity to acquire, evaluate, adapt and apply evidence and analyzed organizational arrangements and implementation barriers. The coordinators of 15 responded to a self-assessment questionnaire from the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. The main products reported are evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues focused on regional problems, training activities and different kinds of rapid responses. Health Evidence Labs have the resources to acquire and evaluate research evidence, but have a low capacity to adapt and apply evidence, indicating that they do not have all the factors (skills, structures, processes, and organizational culture) to promote and use research results in decision-making. The lower capacity to 'adapt' and 'apply' evidence may be related to low development of exchange process with external experts. Governance is joined between managers of the departments with technical bodies; the service provision occurs to attend internal and external demands; financing is public or utilizing public research calls. The implementation barriers described are the staff turnover, inadequate funding arragements for develop knowledge translation products, paid access to evidence databases, lack of a repository for their production, and lack of monitoring and evaluation. Brazil has improved in the institutionalization of evidence-informed policy but still some important barriers to achieve a complete national knowledge translation platform. Key messages Brazil has institutionalized evidence-informed policy from the structuring of EVIPNet Brazil Network. To achieve the network sustainability, it is vital to consider the alignment of organizational elements with an emphasis on governance, financing, and its monitoring.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.841
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207