All talk…only a little action: a reflection on embedding equity into integrated care models in Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) are a recently introduced model of delivery intended to integrate services to deliver connected care to defined populations in Ontario, Canada. The Quadruple Aim advocates for improving patient experience, reducing cost, advancing population health, and improving the provider experience; it is meant to be a guide for OHTs for performance outcomes and as a framework for evaluation and reporting. The Quintuple Aim, incorporating an added focus on health equity, has recently been introduced to OHTs, where equity is also built into continuous quality improvement requirements. As embedded OHT research fellows, we recognize our key role in supporting equity in healthcare delivery and programs. However, we also observe the challenges to generating actionable initiatives to integrate equity into OHTs. Objective: The objective of this presentation is to describe equity initiatives being incorporated in four OHTs in Ontario, Canada and to identify the barriers and facilitators at the micro, meso and macro levels. This presentation is aimed at those involved in integrated care research, policy, practice, and education. Methods: We will use a multiple case study design to describe the contexts of four integrated care models representing large, mid, and small urban regions of the province. This work is guided by the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care, which conceptualizes different domains of integrated care. We will include multiple data sources from each OHT, including key documents, formal and informal community partnerships, the level and nature of engagement with equity-deserving groups in governance processes, the extent to which equity is emphasized in strategic plans and other documents, and the resources available, we share insights gleaned on barriers and facilitators to applying an equity lens. Key Results: We identify challenges related to data availability for health equity decision making and health systems planning. Specifically, difficulties exist in accessing meaningful and linked data to understand OHT attributed populations; these difficulties are compounded when seeking data specific to equity deserving groups and when attempting to link equity relevant indicators to health system indicators. Furthermore, meaningful engagement with equity deserving groups in order to build relationships requires time and resources that are difficult to source; such engagement is particularly challenging in an environment of limited financial resources, where frequent reporting and pressure to quickly deliver outcomes is emphasized. OHTs are collaborative governance models composed of representation from member organizations, patients, and academics; this collaborative approach to governance can be a facilitator to embedding equity deserving groups into the structure of OHTs. Next Steps: Ontario Health Teams require support in creating comprehensive equity approaches that are specific to the needs of their communities and teams; further work is needed to better understand the needs of OHTs in this regard.
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 | 0,022 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,069 | 0,033 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».