MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321352077 · doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.6901

The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) Bridge Process: An Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach to Address Priority Health Issues and Increase Collaborative Research in Nova Scotia, Canada

2023· letter· en· W4321352077 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julia Kontak, Amy Grant, Elizabeth Jeffers, Leah Boulos, Juanna Ricketts, Michael A. Davies, Marina Hamilton, Jill A. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Health and WellnessDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health Authority
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Health, Western Cape GovernmentNova Scotia Health Research FoundationNova Scotia Department of Health and WellnessFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-Brunswick
KeywordsKnowledge translationBridge (graph theory)StakeholderUnit (ring theory)Government (linguistics)Event (particle physics)Nova scotiaProcess (computing)Knowledge managementBusinessPublic relationsComputer sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of the benefits of integrated knowledge translation (IKT), yet there is limited research outlining the purpose of a knowledge broker (KB) within this approach. The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) acts as a KB to support patient-oriented research across the Maritime provinces in Canada. The "Bridge Process" was developed by the Nova Scotia (NS) site as a strategy that involves work leading up to and following the Bridge Event. The process supports research addressing priority health topics discussed at the event by stakeholder groups. The objectives of this paper were to (1) describe the outputs/outcomes of this IKT approach; and (2) examine the role of the KB. METHODS: Quantitative data were collected from registration and evaluation surveys. Outputs are described with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were collected through evaluation surveys and internal documents. Data related to KB tasks were categorized into three domains: (1) Knowledge Manager, (2) Linkage and Exchange Agent, and (3) Capacity Developer. RESULTS: The Bridge Process was implemented four times. A total of 314 participants including government, health, patient/citizen, community, and research personnel attended the events. We identified 24 priority topics, with 7 led by teams receiving support to complete related projects. Participants reported improved understanding of the research gaps and policy needs and engaged with individuals they would not have otherwise. Although patients/citizens attended each Bridge Event, only 61% of participants who completed an evaluation survey indicated that they were 'actively engaged in group discussion.' The KB's role was identified in all three domains including Knowledge Manager (eg, defining questions), Linkage and Exchange Agent (eg, engaging stakeholders), and Capacity Builder (eg, research interpretation). CONCLUSION: The MSSU facilitated an IKT approach by acting as a KB throughout the Bridge Process. This deliberative and sequential process served as an effective strategy to increase collaborative health research in the province.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Policy and ManagementSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207