MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990604014

ECHO HIP: Phase 1: A needs assessment for continuing professional education for health information professionals

2018· article· en· W6990604014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcho (communications protocol)TelehealthSpecialtyContinuing educationHealth careSession (web analytics)Needs assessmentContinuing medical educationHealth professionals
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO) is an innovative clinical education and tele-mentoring model that aims to democratize knowledge and build capacity in the healthcare workforce. ECHO uses a hub-and-spoke model to connect rural and underserved areas (spokes) to learn from each other and from inter-professional specialists (hub). Primarily focused on health care provider education, the ECHO model has not yet been applied to health librarianship. ECHO has the potential to be leveraged by health information professionals (HIP) to share best practices, develop specialty expertise and create a virtual community of practice. Each ECHO session is comprised of a didactic presentation, and case-based learning. To better understand the needs of HIPs and develop a curriculum, a needs assessment survey was developed and conducted. The survey focused on the need for a telehealth based model of continuing education (CE) for HIPs across Canada, and what topic areas should be considered. Based on preliminary data (n=46) 61% of respondents would likely attend ECHO sessions for HIPs, with an additional 35% uncertain. Preferred frequency of sessions is monthly. Didactic topics of greatest interest were literature searching, emerging technologies and evidence-based librarianship. All respondents, so far, have been from medium or large urban centres. There is definite interest in pursuing CE for HIPs based on the ECHO model. One limitation of the survey is the lack of respondents from small/rural communities, which may be addressed once data collection is complete. Future steps include determining funding models and infrastructure, and exploring multilingual options.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico)Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207