MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412216815

5.A. - Scientific session: From theory to action - Applying the Medical Research Council framework on complex interventions:A Process Evaluation in a Randomized Controlled Trial among Adults with Acetabular Dysplasia

2024· article· en· W4412216815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rhiannon Evans, Helle Terkildsen Maindal, Luseadra McKerracher, Nanna Husted Jensen, Maiken Maegaard, Amanda Nikolajew Rasmussen, Julie Sandell Jacobsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Psychological interventionRandomized controlled trialProcess (computing)Action researchMedicineMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceNursingSurgeryPedagogyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reasons for the workshop: Globally, public health problems such as obesity, poor mental health, and social inequality in health are on the rise. Tackling these significant challenges require well-designed complex interventions. Such interventions rarely follow linear sequences from intervention design towards large-scale implementation. Rather, they take non-linear trajectories with constantly revising the intervention design according to the context. This thinking is outlined in the British Medical Research Council’s (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. This workshop encompasses four case projects, each corresponding to one of the four phases in the MRC framework: i) development, ii) feasibility, iii) implementation, and iv) evaluation. However, recognising the deliberately generic nature of this framework, the workshop also encompasses co-creation, process evaluation, and implementation methodology. The combination of these methodologies presents challenges that necessitate clear argumentation and critical reflection. Regrettably, published papers on complex intervention research often lack such clarity and reflection. In this workshop, we will share the challenges encountered when applying the MRC 2021 framework and hopefully inspire future innovative opportunities in intervention research. Specifically, this workshop aims to: i) Exchange challenges from intervention research methods and theories drawing on presenters’ experiences across four health promotion projects. Presenters will critically reflect on the key concepts from the MRC framework including context, programme theory, engagement of stakeholders, uncertainties, and refinement of interventions. ii) Discuss opportunities for future intervention research and outline best practices for using the MRC 2021 framework for complex interventions. The added value of organising the workshop: The audience attending this workshop will reflect on multiple on-the-ground experiences of applying methodology and principles from the MRC framework as well as methods and theories relevant to intervention research: co-creation, qualitative (e.g., ethnography, interviews) and quantitative (e.g. experimental, observational) methods applied to all core phases of complex interventions. At the end of the workshop, the audience will be invited to participate in an open, plenary discussion facilitated by the workshop's chairs: two international experts on complex interventions, Reader Rhiannon Evans and Prof. Helle Terkildsen Maindal. The experts will encourage the presenters and audience to reflect critically on the case projects. Coherence between the presentations in relation to the workshop topic: The four case projects are guided by the MRC framework for complex interventions and involve health promotion interventions at the individual, interpersonal, and structural levels in Denmark and Canada. Key message 1: Tackling public health challenges demands innovative and well-designed complex interventions combining research traditions, principles from health promotion, and cutting-edge best-practice frameworks. Key message 2: The symposium will create a platform for cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange through case projects and an expert-led joint discussion on how to apply the MRC framework for complex interventions. Chairperson 1: (Email: Title, First name, Last name): htm@ph.au.dk: Dr. Helle Terkildsen Maindal Chairperson 2: (Email: Title, First name, Last name): evansRE8@cardiff.ac.dk: Dr. Rhiannon, Evans

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)0.225
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2250.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.005

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.159 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→