Exploring the Intersection Between Health Professionals’ Learning and eHealth Data: Protocol for a Comprehensive Research Program in Practice Analytics in Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing amount of electronic data sitting within the health system. These data have untapped potential to improve clinical practice if extracted efficiently and harnessed to change the behavior of health professionals. Furthermore, there is an increasing expectation from the government and peak bodies that both individual health professionals and health care organizations will use electronic data for a range of applications, including improving health service delivery and informing clinical practice and professional accreditation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research program is to make eHealth data captured within tertiary health care organizations more actionable to health professionals for use in practice reflection, professional development, and other quality improvement activities. METHODS: A multidisciplinary approach was used to connect academic experts from core disciplines of health and medicine, education and learning sciences, and engineering and information communication technology with government and health service partners to identify key problems preventing the health care industry from using electronic data to support health professional learning. This multidisciplinary approach was used to design a large-scale research program to solve the problem of making eHealth data more accessible to health professionals for practice reflection. The program will be delivered over 5 years by doctoral candidates undertaking research projects with discrete aims that run in parallel to achieving this program's objectives. RESULTS: The process used to develop the research program identified 7 doctoral research projects to answer the program objectives, split across 3 streams. CONCLUSIONS: This research program has the potential to successfully unpack electronic data siloed within clinical sites and enable health professionals to use them to reflect on their practice and deliver informed and improved care. The program will contribute to current practices by fostering stronger connections between industry and academia, interlinking doctoral research projects to solve complex problems, and creating new knowledge for clinical sites on how data can be used to understand and improve performance. Furthermore, the program aims to affect policy by developing insights on how professional development programs may be strengthened to enhance their alignment with clinical practice. The key contributions of this paper include the introduction of a new conceptualized research program, Practice Analytics in Health care, by describing the foundational academic disciplines that the program is formed of and presenting scientific methods for its design and development. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/27984.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".