MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405510740 · doi:10.1186/s43058-024-00679-5

Extending the Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework into the virtual environment: a process evaluation and empiric evidence

2024· article· en· W4405510740 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)AuditPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationCoachingApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineNursingWorld Wide WebManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework (CAFF) is a pragmatic, evidence-based approach for the design and implementation of in-person social learning interventions using Audit and Group Feedback (AGF). This report describes extension of CAFF into the virtual environment as part of a multifaceted intervention bundle to reduce redundant daily laboratory testing in hospitals. We evaluate the process of extending CAFF in the virtual environment and share resulting evidence of participant engagement with planning for practice change. METHODS: We describe an innovative virtually facilitated AGF intervention based on the CAFF. The AGF intervention was part of an intervention bundle which included individual physician laboratory test utilization reports and educational tools to reduce redundant daily laboratory testing in hospitals. We used data from recorded and transcribed virtual AGF sessions, post AGF session surveys and detailed field notes maintained by project team members. We used simple descriptive statistics for quantitative data and analyzed qualitative data according to the elements of CAFF. RESULTS: Eighty-three physicians participated over twelve virtual AGF sessions conducted across four tertiary care hospitals during the study period. We demonstrate that all prerequisite activities for CAFF (relationship building, question choice and data representation) were present in every virtual AGF session. Virtual facilitation was effective in supporting the transition of participants through different steps of CAFF in each session to lead to change talk and planning. All participants contributed to discussion during the AGF sessions. The post AGF session surveys were filled by 66% of participants (55/83), with over 90% of respondents reporting that the session helped them improve practice. 46% of participants (38/83) completed personal commitment to change forms at the end of the sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual AGF sessions, developed and implemented with fidelity to the CAFF approach, successfully engaged physicians in a group learning environment that led to change planning. Further studies are needed to determine the generalizability of our findings and to add to the literature on evidence-based virtual facilitation techniques.

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.599
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.122 · 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