MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377942991 · doi:10.56801/seejph.vi.118

Developing an implementation strategy for a World Health Organization public health report: The implementation of the International Perspectives on Spinal Cord Injury (IPSCI) in Romania

2023· article· en· W4377942991 on OpenAlexaff
Per von Groote, Gabi M. Comanescu, Claudia Ungureanu, Jerome Bickenbach, John N. Lavis

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Eastern European Journal of Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupStakeholderThematic analysisProcess managementProcess (computing)Citizen journalismPublic relationsMedicineQualitative researchKnowledge managementPolitical scienceMedical educationBusinessComputer scienceSociologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: The World Health Organization (WHO) publishes a large number of health reports every year, containing recommendations to overcome societal and system barrier challenges toward targeting unmet health needs. One such report, the International Perspectives on Spi-nal Cord Injury (IPSCI), specifically describes the situation of persons with spinal cord in-jury. Against this backdrop, the question arises about how these recommendations can be incorporated into an implementation strategy. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to describe a phased process of developing an implementation strategy for a WHO public health report with IPSCI serving as a case example.Methods: The process to develop the implementation strategy consisted of specific phases each employing particular mechanisms. The preparatory phase was composed of a group dis-cussion to select development mechanisms. The implementation strategy development phase comprised focus-group interviews, as well as of a stakeholder dialogue. Thematic content analysis was applied to qualitative data.Results: The group discussion led to selection of specific development mechanisms. The focus group mechanism allowed key stakeholders to openly discuss implementation goals and processesand impacted the selection of the core implementation group members and the focus of the stakeholder dialogue (SD) discussion.The SD was instrumental in developing a specific implementation strategy based on the report‟s recommendations. The strategy con-sisted of a detailed implementation plan, provisions to coordinate an implementation group and expert guidance.Conclusion: The findings from the current study can inform the ongoing development of systematic, evidence-informed, participatory and stakeholder-driven processes for the devel-opment of implementation strategies for recommendations from WHO public health reports.

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)0.196
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1960.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.622
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth Eastern European Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207