MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169237926 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046117

Use of infographics as a health-related knowledge translation tool: protocol for a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3169237926 on OpenAlexafffund
Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux, Catherine Chabot, Amandine Fillol, Trisha Saha, Christian Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMedicineInfographicKnowledge translationProtocol (science)MEDLINEMedical educationAlternative medicineData scienceKnowledge managementData miningPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to bridge the know-do gap have paved the way for development of the field of knowledge translation (KT). KT aims to understand how evidence use can best be promoted and supported through different activities. For dissemination activities, infographics are gaining in popularity as a promising KT tool to reach multiple health research users (eg, health practitioners, patients and families, decision-makers). However, to our knowledge, no study has yet mapped the available evidence on this tool using a systematic method. This scoping review will explore the depth and breadth of evidence on infographics use and its effectiveness in improving research uptake (eg, raising awareness, influencing attitudes, increasing knowledge, informing practice and changing behaviour). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: , and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). The search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, Cairn and Google Scholar. We will also search for relevant literature from the reference lists of the included publications. Two independent reviewers will select the studies. All study designs will be eligible for inclusion, with no date or publication status restrictions. The included studies will have evaluated infographics that disseminate health research evidence and target a non-scientific audience. A data extraction form will be developed and used to extract and chart the data, which will then be synthesised to present a descriptive summary of the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. To inform the research and KT communities, various dissemination activities will be developed, including user-friendly KT tools (eg, webinars, fact sheets and infographics), open-access publication and presentations at KT events and conferences.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.025

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 head0.969
GPT teacher head0.832
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207