MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164130982 · doi:10.1111/dar.13313

Strategies for engaging policy stakeholders to translate research knowledge into practice more effectively: Lessons learned from the Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation project

2021· article· en· W3164130982 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kate Vallance, Tim Stockwell, Ashley Wettlaufer, Norman Giesbrecht, Clifton Chow, Kiffer G. Card, Amanda M Farrell-Low

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Victoria
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsStakeholderStakeholder engagementGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsNoticeBusinessRelevance (law)Stakeholder analysisJurisdictionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based alcohol policies have the potential to reduce a wide range of related harms. Yet, barriers to adoption and implementation within governments often exist. Engaging relevant stakeholders may be an effective way to identify and address potential challenges thereby increasing reach and uptake of policy evaluation research and strengthening jurisdictional responses to alcohol harms. METHODS: As part of the 2019 Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation project, we conducted interviews with government stakeholders across alcohol-related sectors prior to a second round of researcher-led policy assessments in Canada's 13 provinces and territories. Stakeholders were asked for feedback on the design and impact of an earlier policy assessment in 2013 and for recommendations to improve the design and dissemination strategy for the next iteration. Content analysis was used to identify ways of improving stakeholder engagement. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 stakeholders across 12 of Canada's 13 jurisdictions, including representatives from government health ministries and from alcohol regulation, distribution and finance departments. In providing feedback on our stakeholder engagement strategy, participants highlighted the importance of maintaining ongoing contact; presenting results in accessible online formats; providing advance notice of results; and offering jurisdiction-specific webinars. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study offers important insight into the engagement preferences of government stakeholders involved in the health, regulation, distribution and financial aspects of alcohol control policy. Findings suggest that seeking input from stakeholders as part of conducting evaluation research is warranted; increasing the relevance, reach and uptake of results. Specific stakeholder engagement strategies are outlined.

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)0.546
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.400
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5460.400
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0360.024
Scholarly communication0.0270.014
Open science0.0120.030
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.462
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207