Measuring horizontal integration among health care providers in the community: an examination of a collaborative process within a palliative care network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many countries formal or informal palliative care networks (PCNs) have evolved to better integrate community-based services for individuals with a life-limiting illness. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a customized tool to determine the perceptions of the processes of palliative care delivery reflective of horizontal integration from the perspective of nurses, physicians and allied health professionals working in a PCN, as well as to assess the utility of this tool. The process elements examined were part of a conceptual framework for evaluating integration of a system of care and centred on interprofessional collaboration. We used the Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (IIC) as a basis of measurement. The 86 respondents (85% response rate) placed high value on working collaboratively and most reported being part of an interprofessional team. The survey tool showed utility in identifying strengths and gaps in integration across the network and in detecting variability in some factors according to respondent agency affiliation and profession. Specifically, support for interprofessional communication and evaluative activities were viewed as insufficient. Impediments to these aspects of horizontal integration may be reflective of workload constraints, differences in agency operations or an absence of key structural features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".