MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386656470 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckab165.018

Help! Working with change: An organizational change process model and online registry of resources

2021· article· en· W4386656470 on OpenAlexaff
KATHARINE S. READ, Bandna Dhaliwal, Maureen Dobbins

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange management (ITSM)Process (computing)Thematic analysisKnowledge managementOrganizational changePlanned changeProcess managementComputer scienceOrganization developmentQualitative researchBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The health system is continuously undergoing change in response to various internal and external drivers. The organizational change literature is complex and multi-disciplinary, making it challenging for health professionals to utilize efficiently. To support practitioners through times of change, The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) developed a health sector-specific model of organizational change, by synthesizing existing models and frameworks, and developed an online registry of resources to help guide practitioners through the change process. Objectives Existing change process models were identified through a scoping review of reviews published from 2000-2015, supplemental searches using a snowball method, and contact with key informants. A thematic analysis identified key themes and activities. To support the use of the model, a search of the academic and grey literature was conducted to identify practical organizational change tools. Resources were tagged with specific stages in the model and added to an online interactive Registry. The online Registry is available for practitioners to gain knowledge and understanding of processes of change relevant to the health sector, identify facilitators and barriers to change, and use methods and tools to support practitioners throughout the change process. Results A total of 30 organizational change process models were identified and synthesized to create a new five-stage model: assessing the NEED for change; PLANning for change; IMPLEMENTing change initiatives; SUSTAINing change within the organization; and EVOLVing to continuously meet drivers for change. The easy to use and interactive platform hosts over 100 practical tools linked to stages in the model to support organization and systems change. Conclusions This new resource will support the implementation of evidence-informed practices, policies and programs in public health and the broader health care system. Key messages The health system is continuously undergoing change and can be challenging to navigate. A health sector-specific organizational change process model and online registry of resources can help guide public health professionals throughout the change process.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.025
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.770
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→