Physicians' Perceptions of Integration in Three Western Canada Health Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the post decade, provincial governments have embarked on ambitious plans to better integrate their healthcare systems, through the introduction of regional governance and management structures. The objective of this study was to examine physicians' perceptions of the current level and facilitators/barriers to integration in three Western Canada Health Regions. Three approaches to integration were investigated: functional, clinical services, and physician system integration. Physicians perceived that functional integration within each region was questionable. Clinical services were the least integrated approach. Physician system integration was rated highest of the approaches, particularly adherence to clinical practice guidelines usage. Physicians' perspectives of integrated health delivery systems do not appear to be influenced by regional size, maturity, urbanicity or facilities. Facilitators of integration were communication among health professionals and service providers, and using a multi-disciplinary team approach in delivery of healthcare in both regions. Barriers to integration were organizational culture, access to specialists and clinical services, and health information records. On a scale of 1-5, all three regions are at the beginning of an integrated health delivery system. Three global suggestions were provided to further integration of health delivery services: physicians should be involved in decision-making process at the Board level, clinical services should be patient-centred, and physicians endorsed the use of multi-disciplinary teams.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".