Healthcare system performance improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that healthcare system performance may be improved with policy emphasis on primary care, quality improvement, and information technology. The authors therefore sought to investigate the extent to which policy makers in seven countries are emphasizing these areas. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Policies in these three areas in seven high-income countries were compared. A comparative descriptive approach was taken in which each of the country-specialist authors supplied information on key policies and developments pertaining to primary care, quality improvement and information technology, supplemented with routine data. FINDINGS: Each of the seven countries faces similar challenges with healthcare system performance, yet differs in emphasis on the three key policy areas; efforts in each are, at best, patchy. The authors conclude that there is substantial scope for policy makers to further emphasize primary care, quality improvement and information technology if aiming for high-performing healthcare systems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first study to investigate policy-makers' commitment to key areas known to improve health system performance. The comparative method illustrates the different emphases that countries have placed on primary care, quality improvement and information technology development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".