MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644684717 · doi:10.5334/ijic.578

Divergent modes of integration: the Canadian way

2011· article· en· W1644684717 on OpenAlexaffabout
Izzat Jiwani, Marie‐Josée Fleury

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careAutonomyAccountabilityHealth careBusinessPublic relationsIncentiveService delivery frameworkHealth policyPrivate sectorPublic healthService (business)NursingMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The paper highlights key trajectories and outcomes of the recent policy developments toward integrated health care delivery systems in Quebec and Ontario in the primary care sector and in the development of regional networks of health and social services. It particularly explores how policy legacies, interests and cultures may be mitigated to develop and sustain different models of integrated health care that are pertinent to the local contexts. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS: In Quebec, three decades of iterative developments in health and social services evolved in 2005 into integrated centres for health and social services at the local levels (CSSSs). Four integrated university-based health care networks provide ultra-specialised services. Family Medicine Groups and network clinics are designed to enhance access and continuity of care. Ontario's Family Health Teams (2004) constitute an innovative public funding for private delivery model that is set up to enhance the capacity of primary care and to facilitate patient-based care. Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) with autonomous boards of provider organisations are intended to coordinate and integrate care. CONCLUSION: Integration strategies in Quebec and Ontario yield clinical autonomy and power to physicians while simultaneously making them key partners in change. Contextual factors combined with increased and varied forms of physician remunerations and incentives mitigated some of the challenges from policy legacies, interests and cultures. Virtual partnerships and accountability agreements between providers promise positive but gradual movement toward integrated health service systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207