Data-driven policy making: a key step for the healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The work presented in this workshop suggest important room for improvement in data-driven health policy making in France and in Germany. We identify data generated by healthcare systems can be mobilized to inform four different aspects of public health and health care policy making: 1. Supporting patient-centered evaluation of healthcare services: micro-level data collection is key to developing evaluation tools which can be used to improve quality of care and patient experience, as evidenced by the development of PROMS and PREMS. 2. Adapting care supply to population needs: meso-level data collection enables local and national policy makers to design and implement healthcare programs and investments which fit population needs. 3. Developing targeted prevention policies: meso-level data collection can also be used to identify health hazards, improve population safety and limit health impact of exposure to sanitary and environmental risks, allowing local and national policy makers to articulate prevention strategies. 4. Informing healthcare research: patient and meso-level data are invaluable resources for health and life-sciences research, supporting identification of biomarkers and development of diagnostic tools and treatment. Additionally, we identify that all four of these aspects of data-driven policy have implications at a local, national, and European level. In light of this, Institut Montaigne strongly advocates for a population-based approach, as implemented in Canada, relying on multiple datasets as well as individual and collective responsibility. We also stress the need for coordination at a European level, aware the current implementation of the European Health Data Space is an opportunity to leverage information from EU-wide databases. Data-driven public health and health care policy is a tool of public value and its use is critical to ensuring resilience of current health systems and addressing future crises.
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 | 0.370 | 0.249 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.063 | 0.068 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".