Transforming Health through Integrated Care. A Canadian collective research platform.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) launched a strategic research funding program called Transforming Health with Integrated Care (THINC). This initiative is a bold step forward to address the very complex challenges associated with implementing and sustaining integrated care at scale. Upwards of 100 grants have been funded to contribute to the knowledge base and the application of knowledge to improve patient and caregiver experience, provider experience, health outcomes and costs while considering and addressing health equity (Quintuple Aim). The flagship program of the THINC initiative includes 13 Implementation Science Teams (ISTs), each funded with $2 Million (CAD) over 5 years and a Knowledge Mobilization (KM) hub, which is being coordinated through the International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC) Canada Country Hub. There are several key principles and foundations for the THINC program. Each funded program requires quadripartite leadership including Researcher, Decision-Maker, Provider and Patient/Caregiver co-leadership. Each grant also requires both a Sex and Gender and an Equity champion to ensure attention to these critical perspectives in the programs. In this workshop we will engage in discussion about co-designing research and programs with such quadripartite leadership to: 1) ensure that the research is relevant and used for health care delivery planning by decision-makers; and 2) ensure that the research is relevant to front line health care providers and to patients and caregivers. We will also have discussion about how Implementation Science research in particular can benefit from the multi-stakeholder leadership. In this workshop we will introduce the overall CIHR program, as well as five of the THINC ISTs and the KM hub led by IFIC Canada. Small-group round-table discussions amongst workshop participants (researchers, providers, decision-makers and patients) will share international experience with, and reactions to this type of collaboration. There will be 3 key topics for discussions: First will focus on the representation of the four types of roles included as leaders in each of the projects including how these individuals are identified and how their input is recognized and included in project decision-making. Second will be the challenges and opportunities that can be generated through Implementation Science research. And third will be recommendations for design elements for collaborative research and evaluation that can support scale and spread of integrated care. The small-group round-table discussion will be facilitated and recorded by team leads from the ISTs. Summative insights from the discussions and key recommendations will be identified and summarized. This workshop will be of tremendous value to all types of stakeholders to develop common understanding towards approaching integrated care research and evaluation using this quadripartite and implementation science approach. Timing: The timing of the program is to spend 20 minutes outlining the overall key design elements (5 minutes) and providing the examples of the 5 participating research teams (3 minutes each). Then the three discussion topics will be given 15 minutes each. There will then be 15 minutes for report-back and summary from all of the breakout groups and 10 minutes for session synthesis and final comments/questions.
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 | 0,045 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,022 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,003 |
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 ».