MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019880349 · doi:10.1108/14769018200800041

Evaluation of the Implementation of PRISMA, a Coordination‐Type Integrated Service Delivery System for Frail Older People in Québec

2008· article· en· W2019880349 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionService (business)Process managementService delivery frameworkProcess (computing)Outcome (game theory)BusinessOperations managementNursingComputer scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyMedicineMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRISMA is the only example of a co‐ordinated‐type model to be developed and fully implemented with a process and outcome evaluation. The PRISMA model was implemented in three areas (urban, rural with or without a local hospital) in Quebec, Canada and an implementation evaluation was carried out using mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods. Over four years, the implementation rates went from 22% to 79%. The perception of integration by managers and clinicians working in the various organisations of the network shows that most interactions are perceived as at the co‐operation level, some getting the highest collaboration level. The perception of the efficacy of case managers was very high. Implementing such a model is feasible, and the decision to generalise it was made in Quebec. This model might be more appropriate for a universal publicly funded health care system like those in Canada, the UK and the Scandinavian countries.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.320 · 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