MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190109267 · doi:10.1136/bmj.n1679

Adapting interventions to new contexts—the ADAPT guidance

2021· article· en· W3190109267 on OpenAlexaff
Graham Moore, Mhairi Campbell, Lauren Copeland, Peter Craig, Ani Movsisyan, Pat Hoddinott, Hannah Littlecott, Alicia O’Cathain, Lisa M. Pfadenhauer, Eva Rehfuess, Jeremy Segrott, Penelope Hawe, Frank Kee, Danielle Couturiaux, Britt Hallingberg, Rhiannon Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKLlywodraeth CymruCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health ImprovementRAND CorporationHealth and Care Research WalesBritish Heart FoundationScottish GovernmentUnited Kingdom Clinical Research CollaborationWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)Computer scienceIntervention (counseling)Knowledge managementManagement scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceProcess managementMedicinePsychologyBusinessNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing interventions with a previous evidence base in new contexts might be more efficient than developing new interventions for each context. Although some interventions transfer well, effectiveness and implementation often depend on the context. Achieving a good fit between intervention and context then requires careful and systematic adaptation. This paper presents new evidence and consensus informed guidance for adapting and transferring interventions to new contexts.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0160.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.747
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.027 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations509
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207