Developing interdisciplinary maternity services policy in Canada. Evaluation of a consensus workshop
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Four maternity/obstetrical care organizations, representing women, midwives, obstetricians and family doctors conducted interdisciplinary policy research under auspices of four key stakeholder groups. These projects teams and key stakeholders subsequently collaborated to develop consensus on strategies for improved maternity services in Ontario. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate a 2-day research synthesis and consensus building conference to answer policy questions in relation to new models of interdisciplinary maternity care organizations in different settings in Ontario. METHODS: The evaluation consisted of a scan of individual project activities and findings as were presented to an invited audience of key stakeholders at the consensus conference. This involved: participant observation with key informant consultation; a survey of attendees; pattern processing and sense making of project materials, consensus statements derived at the conference in the light of participant observation and survey material as pertaining to a complex system. The development of a systems framework for maternity care policy in Ontario was based on secondary analysis of the material. FINDINGS: Conference participants were united on the importance of investment in maternity care for Ontario and the impending workforce crisis if adaptation of the workforce did not take place. The conference participants proposed reforming the current system that was seen as too rigid and inflexible in relation to the constraints of legislation, provider scope of practice and remuneration issues. However, not one model of interdisciplinary maternity/obstetrical care was endorsed. Consistency and coherence of models (rather than central standardization) through self-organization based on local needs was strongly endorsed. An understanding of primary maternity care models as subsystems of networked providers in complex health organizations and a wider social system emerged. The patterns identified were incorporated into a complexity framework to assist sense making to inform policy. DISCUSSION: Coherence around core values, holism and synthesis with responsiveness to local needs and key stakeholders were themes that emerged consistent with complex adaptive systems principles. Respecting historical provider relationships and local history provided a background for change recognizing that systems evolve in part from where they have been. The building of functioning relationships was central through education and improved communication with ongoing feedback loops (positive and negative). Information systems and a flexible improved central and local organization of maternity services was endorsed. Education and improved communication through ongoing feedback loops (positive and negative) were central to building functioning relationships. Also, coordinated central organization with a flexible and adaptive local organization of maternity services was endorsed by participants. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation used an approach comprising scoping, pattern processing and sense making. While the projects produced considerable typical research evidence, the key policy questions could not be addressed by this alone, and a process of synthesis and consensus building with stakeholder engagement was applied. An adaptive system with local needs driving a relationship based network of interdisciplinary groupings or teams with both bottom up and central leadership. A complexity framework enhanced sense making for the system approaches and understandings that emerged.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,255 | 0,180 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,039 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,021 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».