MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381386749 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x23001796

Decision Maker's Experiences with Rapid Evidence Summaries to Support Real-time Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Crises: A Mixed Methods Study

2023· article· en· W4381386749 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Firas Khalid, Jeremy Grimshaw, Nandana D. Parakh, Rana Charide, Faiza Rab, Salim Sohani

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Red Cross SocietyOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistEvidence-based practicePresentation (obstetrics)Decision aidsEmpirical evidencePublic relationsPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There is a clear need for research evidence to drive policymaking and emergency responses so lives are saved and resources are not wasted. The need for evidence support for health and humanitarian crisis is pertinent because of the time and practical constraints that decision makers in these settings face. To improve the use of research evidence in policy and practice, it is important to provide evidence resources tailored to the target audience. This study aims to gain real-world insights from decision makers about how they use evidence summaries to inform real-time decision making in crisis settings, and to use the findings to improve the format of evidence summaries. Method: This study used an explanatory sequential mixed method study design. First, a survey was used to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in crisis response in different contexts, and who may or may not have used evidence summaries. Second, the insights generated from the survey helped inform qualitative interviews with decision makers in crisis-settings to derive an in-depth understanding of how they use evidence summaries and their desired format for evidence summaries. Results: Twenty-six decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies were interviewed. The study identified challenges decision makers face when trying to find and use research evidence in crises, including insufficient time and increased burden of responsibilities during crises. Decision makers preferred the following components in evidence summaries: title, target audience, presentation of key findings in an actionable checklist, implementation considerations, and assessment of the quality of evidence presented. The study developed an evidence summary template with accompanying training material to inform real-time decision making in crisis settings. Conclusion: The study provided a deeper understanding of the preferences of decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies regarding the format of evidence summaries to enable real-time evidence-informed decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207