Communicating the Implementation of Open Notes to Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature on how to communicate reform in organizations has mainly focused on levels of hierarchy and has largely ignored the variety of professions that may be found within an organization. In this study, we focus on the relationship between media type and professional responses. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether and how belonging to a profession influences the choice of communication media and the perception of information when a technical innovation is implemented in a health care setting. METHODS: This study followed a mixed methods design based on observations and participant studies, as well as a survey of professionals in psychiatric health care in Sweden. The χ2 test was used to detect differences in perceptions between professional groups. RESULTS: The use of available communication media differed among professions. These differences seem to be related to the status attached to each profession. The sense-making of the information appears to be similar among the professions, but is based on their traditional professional norms rather than on reflection on the reform at hand. CONCLUSIONS: When communicating about the implementation of a new technology, the choice of media and the message need to be attuned to the employees in both hierarchical and professional terms. This also applies to situations where professional employees are only indirectly affected by the implementation. A differentiated communication strategy is preferred over a downward cascade of information.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".