From the analysis of our interviews, we distill several visualization research directions to improve KG usability, including knowledge cards that balance digestibility and discoverability, timeline views to track temporal changes, interfaces that support organic discovery, and semantic explanations for AI and machine learning predictions. Lastly, we find that implementing KGs effectively in practice requires both technical and social solutions that are not addressed with current tools, technologies, and collaborative workflows. For KG Consumers, we identify a lack of efficacy for node-link diagrams, and the need for tailored domain-specific visualizations to promote KG adoption and comprehension. We discover that KG Builders would benefit from schema enforcers, while KG Analysts need customizable query builders that provide interim query results. Our findings reveal three major personas among KG practitioners - KG Builders, Analysts, and Consumers - each of whom have their own distinct expertise and needs. Through this study, we identify critical challenges experienced by KG practitioners when creating, exploring, and analyzing KGs that could be alleviated through visualization design. This study presents insights from interviews with nineteen Knowledge Graph (KG) practitioners who work in both enterprise and academic settings on a wide variety of use cases. Based on our findings, clear mechanisms and processes for channeling scientific evidence into decision-making need to be identified, and doing so will strengthen preparedness for future public health crises. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.Ĭonclusions: Areas to be considered in planning for future emergencies include: information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination of data collection and use, and transparency as to how decisions are made-all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. Perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform pandemic governance. Results: Overall, while many actors’ impressions were that BC's early COVID-19 policy response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty as to what evidence was used and how it flowed into decision-making processes. Framework analysis was also employed to generate analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives. The questions focused on: 1) the use of evidence in policy-making 2) the interface between researchers and policy-makers and 3) key challenges perceived by respondents as barriers to applying scientific evidence to COVID-19 policy decisions.ĭata were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative method. From July 2021- January 2022, we conducted 18 semi-structured key informant interviews with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors involved in the public health response. Methods: We examined decision-makers' observations on evidence-use in early COVID-19 policy-making in British Columbia (BC), Canada through a qualitative case study. Questions about the decision-making process, including what forms of evidence were used, and how evidence informed – or did not inform – policy have been debated. Background: The challenges of evidence-based decision-making in a public health emergency have never been so notable as during the COVID-19 pandemic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |