MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198990263 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01793-4

Organizational knowledge translation strategies for allied health professionals in traumatology settings: realist review protocol

2021· article· en· W3198990263 on OpenAlexafffund
Karine Latulippe, Annie LeBlanc, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Katia Boivin, Pascale Lavoie, Joëlle Dufour, Emmanuelle Paquette Raynard, Eve Richard, Marie‐Ève Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité LavalBibliothèque et Archives nationales du QuébecCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicineTraumatologyKnowledge translationProtocol (science)Cochrane LibraryContext (archaeology)CitationGrey literatureKnowledge managementMEDLINEMedical educationNursingAlternative medicinePsychiatryComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) is an important means of improving the health service quality. Most research on the effectiveness of KT strategies has focused on individual strategies, i.e., those directly targeting the modification of allied health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, for example. In general, these strategies are moderately effective in changing practices (maximum 10% change). Effecting change in organizational contexts (e.g., change readiness, general and specific organizational capacity, organizational routines) is part of a promising new avenue to service quality improvement through the implementation of evidence-based practices. The objective of this study will be to identify why, how, and under what conditions organizational KT strategies have been shown to be effective or ineffective in changing the (a) knowledge, (b) attitudes, and (c) clinical behaviors of allied health professionals in traumatology settings. METHODS: This is a realist review protocol involving four iterative steps: (1) Initial theory formulation, (2) search for Evidence search, (3) knowledge extraction and synthesis, and (4) recommendations. We will search electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The studies included will be those relating to the use of organizational KT strategies in trauma settings, regardless of study designs, published between January 1990 and October 2020, and presenting objective measures that demonstrate change in allied health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical behaviors. Two independent reviewers will select, screen, and extract the data related to all relevant sources in order to refine or refute the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations developed in the initial theory and identify new CMO configurations. DISCUSSION: Using a systematic and rigorous method, this review will help guide decision-makers and researchers in choosing the best organizational strategies to optimize the implementation of evidence-based practices. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020216105.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.682
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.010 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207