Development and evaluation of a community of practice to improve stem cell donor recruitment in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives Communities of practice (CoPs) represent effective models to achieve quality outcomes in health care. We report the development and evaluation of a CoP to improve stem cell donor recruitment in Canada. Materials and Methods In September 2017, we invited national stakeholders in stem cell donor recruitment to participate in a Facebook group and regular e-meetings. E-meetings involved speakers and roundtable discussion on topics related to donor recruitment. The Facebook group facilitated sharing of resources. We evaluated stakeholder perspective of the CoP and the impact on recruitment outcomes. Results As of December 2020, the CoP included 382 members who published 243 posts to the Facebook group about patient/donor stories (40%), resources (27%), updates/questions (21%) and recruitment outcomes (12%). In January 2020, we surveyed 44 CoP participants; the majority felt that the Facebook group (86%) and e-meetings (59%) supported the community, and that the CoP fostered collaboration (82%), improved their donor recruitment knowledge (75%) and practice (77%) and improved their ability to recruit needed donors (64%). The launch of the CoP correlated with improved donor recruitment outcomes. In 2016-2017, CoP participants recruited 2918 registrants (46% male; 55.9% non-Caucasian) compared to 4531 registrants in 2018-2019 (52.9% male; 62.7% non-Caucasian). Members of the CoP developed innovative resources to support recruitment efforts and led national campaigns securing coverage in major media outlets. Conclusion We describe the first CoP in stem cell donor recruitment to be formally evaluated. The CoP model may be adopted by donor recruitment organisations, registries and blood banks worldwide to improve recruitment outcomes. HIGHLIGHTS: • A community of practice (CoP) in stem cell donor recruitment was valued by participants and supported efforts to improve recruitment outcomes. • The CoP model may be adopted by donor recruitment organizations, donor registries, and blood banks worldwide to improve recruitment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".