MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416378053 · doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000002252

Lessons From the Community-Engaged, Data-Driven Selection of Evidence-Based Practice Strategies in the HEALing Communities Study

2025· article· en· W4416378053 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Balvanz, Daniel R. Harris, Ramona G. Olvera, Nasim S. Sabounchi, Carly Bridden, Jane Carpenter, Carolyn Damato-MacPherson, James L. David, Naleef Fareed, Erin Gibson, Timothy R. Huerta, Timothy Hunt, Sarah Kosakowski, Marc R. Larochelle, Nikki Lewis, David W. Lounsbury, Courtney Plagens, Rebecca Smeltzer, Jennifer Villani, Elwin Wu, Rachel P. Chase

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsGibson Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Selection (genetic algorithm)Resource (disambiguation)Best practicePublic healthMEDLINEVariety (cybernetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health data and tools have proliferated, yet practical guidance for community-engaged data-driven decision making is limited. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was a randomized, wait-list controlled trial to assess the impact of an intervention to reduce fatal opioid overdoses in 67 highly affected communities across 4 sites (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio). HCS researchers implemented the Communities That HEAL intervention, a phased approach which included a coalition-engaged, data-driven approach to selection of evidence-based practice strategies to reduce fatal opioid overdoses. Core steps to the data-driven approach included data selection, access, display, and engagement. Staff selected metrics that aligned with study goals, accessed data from numerous sources, created visualizations, and engaged coalition members to assess resource gaps and intervention opportunities. At the intervention conclusion, all 4 sites' staff collectively workshopped best practices and barriers encountered to data-driven decision making. This article explains the data-driven decision-making approach implemented, assessment results, alterations for subsequent implementation, and guidance for future implementations.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.513
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.467
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5130.467
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.023
Scholarly communication0.0210.020
Open science0.0090.029
Research integrity0.0100.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.903
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207