MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403784103 · doi:10.1108/jhom-02-2023-0036

Effective decision-making in public health organizations: reference to the COVID-19 pandemic

2024· review· en· W4403784103 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Liem, Narongsak Thongpapanl, Brent E. Faught

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Organization and Management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public health2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Political scienceVirologyMedicineNursingOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The role of public health organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic was crucial. These groups acted to slow the spread of infection through the implementation of initiatives, policies, research and more. However, the rapidly changing and uncertain climate of the pandemic resulted in suboptimal processes and decision-making within these organizations. These already complex organizations and networks of people became even more nuanced. Thus, organizational decision-making processes must be improved upon based on previous experiences and lessons learnt. With minimal peer-reviewed literature available, resources for effective organizational decision-making in these organizations are scarce. This served as the impetus for this review. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: To conduct this literature review, both peer-reviewed and grey literature were incorporated to better understand effective organizational decision-making practices for public health organizations. Recommendations found in the literature review were identified, coded and themed to provide a novel decision-making framework to be used by public health executives. FINDINGS: Nine key themes of effective organizational decision-making were identified, including utilize decision-making tools, define the problem and acknowledge an imminent decision, establish decision rights, outline a clear escalation path, create a supportive organizational culture, set decision objectives and goals, and evaluate decision alternatives. These findings in conjunction with existing decision-making models were used to create a seven-step effective decision-making framework for public health organizations. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The review and analysis of effective organizational decision-making practices is instructive. Public health executives and decision-makers should incorporate the themes identified and employ the proposed decision-making framework to encourage improved decision-making practices.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0180.015
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Organization and ManagementSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207