Participatory Modeling with Discrete-Event Simulation: A Hybrid Approach to Inform Policy Development to Reduce Emergency Department Wait Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We detail a case study using a participatory modeling approach in the development and use of discrete-event simulations to identify intervention strategies aimed at reducing emergency department (ED) wait times in a Canadian health policy setting. A four-stage participatory modeling approach specifically adapted to the local policy environment was developed to engage stakeholders throughout the modeling processes. The participatory approach enabled a provincial team to engage a broad range of stakeholders to examine and identify the causes and solutions to lengthy ED wait times in the studied hospitals from a whole-system perspective. Each stage of the approach was demonstrated through its application in the case study. A novel and key feature of the participatory modeling approach was the development and use of a multi-criteria framework to identify and prioritize interventions to reduce ED wait times. We conclude with a discussion on lessons learned, which provide insights into future development and applications of participatory modeling methods to facilitate policy development and build multi-stakeholder consensus.
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 | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".