Person-Centred Interoperability: Digital Health and Data Enabling Integrated Care Special Interest Group Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Members of the Digital Health and Data Enabling Integrated Care Special Interest Group came together at ICIC23 to discuss priority issues around interoperability and information data sharing. This year we will advance this conversation by focusing on how we can embed interoperable digital solutions and data systems into caring communities of patients, caregivers, and and decision merks in a way that maximizes fit for purpose and ultimate impact. Aims and Objectives: The SIG will engage participants in a critically important discussion around how and why interoperable data and digital systems need to be embedded in their communities to support person-centred care delivery. Last year’s session included a roundtable discussion about how patients, caregivers, and communities need to be able to access data, interpret and understand information. Three core issues came from our patients and caregiver partners in that session including: 1) the need to standardise information sharing with both patients and caregivers in a way that is meaningful and useful; 2) how we ensure interoperable technologies support, maintain, and grow important interactions and relationships; and 3) building a person-centred lens into policy drivers for interoperable systems. We will build on these and share current and emerging work around these three areas of interest; focusing on how to best collect and integrate the needs of community members into the ongoing development of upcoming and existing digital and integrated care programs. Audience: All existing and newly interested members of the SIG are welcome to join this discussion. Our growing membership consists of patients and family caregivers, researchers, frontline providers, managers, system leaders and decision-makers, policy makers, informaticians, and industry partners. Structure and engagement: This session will use the hour largely to engage with delegates to meet session objectives. To set up the discussion we will begin with a short introduction from SIG leads (C. Steele Gray, L. Lewis, I. Meyer) who will talk about each of the three issues in relation to current work and evidence. SIG member and patient partner Hilary Horlock will then provide her perspective on these three issues, to help understand what standardised information can look like, how relationships can be supported and maintained, and building from her experience driving policy in Canada, how digital health policies can maintain service users at the centre. Delegates in the session will then break into working groups to address each of the three topic areas to generate a preliminary set of recommendations that can be applied at organizational and system levels. Facilitators will use a live Google Jamboard to record ideas shared by the individual groups. Structure: 1) Introduction (15 minutes); 2) Hilary’s reflection (15 minutes); 3) Table Discussions (20 minutes); 4) Report back (10 minutes) Summarizing take home messages: In the final 10 minutes of the session the full group will reconvene to review the live Google Jamboards and recommendations. This exercise will help to generate a short report we can share with our networks, while allowing us to broker collaborations between delegates working on shared challenges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".