MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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

2024· other· en· W6940110262 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)AuditPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Process (computing)Test (biology)Qualitative propertyData collectionDescriptive statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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.

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)0.396
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.331
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3960.331
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→