Decentralized Management of Home Care Services for Seniors: Protocol for a Participatory Action Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The centralization of decision-making power in the public health care system has a negative impact on the practice of professionals and the quality of home care services (HCS) for seniors. To improve HCS, decentralized management could be a particularly promising approach. To be effective, strategies designed to incorporate this management approach require attention to 3 elements: autonomy of local stakeholders, individual and organizational capacities, and accountability for actions and decisions. Not many studies have focused on strategies for integrating decentralized and collaborative management at the local level in HCS. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study is to coconstruct HCS management strategies and explore decentralized practices in the day-to-day work of low-level managers and professionals. The specific objectives, in collaboration with local HCS stakeholders, are to (1) identify concrete and achievable strategies for decentralized management, and (2) describe factors (facilitators and obstacles) that could potentially influence their integration. METHODS: This participatory action research involves a cyclical process. Before initiating the cycles, a preliminary stage consists of forming a steering committee composed of managers (n=3), professionals (n=3), seniors (n=3), informal caregivers (n=3), and the research team (n=3). This committee will facilitate multistakeholder consultation to coconstruct local management strategies based on a real-life problem identified by the committee. The steering committee will also guide the research process. The first cycle will consist of establishing an initial plan of decentralized management strategies. During the observation phase, meetings of 4 homogeneous focus groups, including managers, professionals, seniors, and informal caregivers, will be held. During the reflection phase, a thematic analysis will be carried out, and data will be interpreted and validated by the steering committee. Then, in the action phase, results will be presented to managers and professionals so that they can coconstruct a plan of decentralized management strategies to prioritize. The second cycle will explore the factors involved. The observation, reflection, and action phases will be repeated. Ultimately, the results of the 2 cycles will be integrated in a model coconstructed by the steering committee. RESULTS: Data collection is in progress; the partnership officially began on February 1, 2024, and the plan is to continue data collection through 2025. The steering committee will validate the data to ensure that they are accurate and that the results reflect the reality of local stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying decentralized and collaborative management strategies at the local level as well as factors to facilitate their integration in HCS, this approach can be used for other decentralized management projects in different areas of the health care system. This study will give decision makers insight into strategies aimed at improving the management of their institution, which will enhance seniors' well-being and the quality of their health care services. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58271.
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 | 0,185 | 0,136 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,063 | 0,013 |
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 ».