Role of mandated structures in promoting integration within and between levels: longitudinal analysis of deliberate actions in Quebec's cancer network
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Healthcare networks are mandated structures promoted by governing authorities as a means of assuring effective and integrated care. Network governance models influence the translation of policy intentions into change at organizational and practice level, with formal and informal coordination arrangements playing a role. This study identifies deliberate actions taken within a national cancer network and their influence on making integrated care a reality within and across decision-making levels and provider groups. Objectives: The Quebec Cancer network, instituted in 1998, provides a rare opportunity to empirically probe deliberate actions taken over a long period within a network. The aim is to understand how these drive the emergence of principled engagement, mutual understanding and capacity for joint action that are recognized in seminal work by Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, as mechanisms of collaborative governance. The study provides guidance for health system leaders and managers in their efforts to support change towards network integration in specialized domains. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study of the Quebec cancer network with data drawn from documents, meeting observation and individual interviews with stakeholders (n=37), including patient partners, involved in regional and/or national cancer network structures. We examined the formal structures imposed by central cancer authorities, the perceptions of network actors at multiple levels on the collaborative dynamics between actors within these structures, and their impact on integrated practice. Results: We find that mandated structures imposed by central cancer authorities provide important venues for the activation of mechanisms that underpin collaborative governance. Opportunities to develop trust and recognize each other’s distinct contributions and interdependencies are important drivers of these mechanisms. Findings also highlight that these structures involve trade-offs between cohesiveness and inclusivity across care sites and provider groups. Finally, they highlight the importance of routes that allow local initiatives and innovations to filter up into central policy decisions, and junction points where descending and ascending movements can converge to develop mutual understanding and resolve controversies. Implications: Insights from this study will guide system leaders in their efforts to create network governance conditions for the emergence of integrated high-quality care across the cancer trajectory. Findings suggest pathways for further inquiry, notably research the into trade-offs between cohesiveness and inclusivity in mandated network structures that may hold lessons for policy in cancer care and other specialized domains.
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 | 0,007 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».