MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406277870 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12204-y

Addressing evidence needs during health crises in the province of Quebec (Canada): a proposed action plan for rapid evidence synthesis

2025· article· en· W4406277870 on OpenAlexaffabout
Quan Nha Hong, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux, Maxime Guillette, Luiza Maria Manceau, Jingjing Li, Vera Granikov, Marie‐Pascale Pomey, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Saliha Ziam, Christian Dagenais, Pierre Dagenais, Alain Lesage, Thomas G. Poder, Martin Drapeau, Valéry Ridde, Julie Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité TÉLUQUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationHealth administrationAction planAction (physics)Public relationsNursing researchHealth informaticsMedicinePlan (archaeology)Health services researchPublic healthPandemicProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessNursingPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the rapid availability of evidence to respond in a timely manner to the needs of practice settings and decision-makers in health and social services. Now that the pandemic is over, it is time to put in place actions to improve the capacity of systems to meet knowledge needs in a situation of crisis. The main objective of this project was thus to develop an action plan for the rapid syntheses of evidence in times of health crisis in Quebec (Canada). METHODS: We conducted a three-phase collaborative research project. First, we carried out a survey with producers and users of rapid evidence syntheses (n = 40) and a group interview with three patient partners to prioritize courses of action. In parallel, we performed a systematic mapping of the literature to identify rapid evidence synthesis initiatives developed during the pandemic. The results of these two phases were used in a third phase, in which we organized a deliberative workshop with 26 producers and users of rapid evidence syntheses to identifying strategies to operationalize priorities. The data collected at each phase were compared to identify common courses of action and integrated to develop an action plan. RESULTS: A total of 14 specific actions structured into four main axes were identified over the three phases. In axis 1, actions on raising awareness of the importance of evidence-informed decision-making among stakeholders in the health and social services network are presented. Axis 2 includes actions to promote optimal collaboration of key stakeholders in the production of rapid evidence synthesis to support decision-making. Actions advocating the use of a variety of rapid evidence synthesis methodologies known to be effective in supporting decision-making are presented in axis 3. Finally, axis 4 is about actions on the use of effective knowledge translation strategies to promote the use of rapid evidence synthesis products to support decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This project led to the development of a collective action plan aimed at preparing the Quebec ecosystem and other similar jurisdictions to meet knowledge needs more effectively in times of health emergency. The implementation of this plan and its evaluation will enable us to continue to fine-tune it.

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)0.432
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.355
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4320.355
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0220.010
Scholarly communication0.0240.014
Open science0.0150.020
Research integrity0.0210.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.740
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.050 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→