The role of regional planning and management strategies in the transformation of the healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a case study, this article questions the role of planning and management strategies in the process of transforming a regional public healthcare system that involves a number of organizations and is characterized by fluidity in its functions and division of power. It examines the efficacy of the Regional Plan for the Organization of Health Services (PROS) in reforming the mental health sector in a health and social service district in Quebec, in terms of integrated regional management of mental healthcare and activities at the local level. The regional planning procedure involves a major transformation in management of the mental health system, organizational roles and clinical and professional practices. Our assessment of PROS highlights the importance of taking into account the context of implementation and the instrumental value of planning, before judging its efficacy. To transform a complex healthcare system at the regional and local level, the study suggests a revised conception of the main roles played by planning and of the process shaping its implementation. Our study concludes in favour of developing management strategies at the operational, clinical and professional levels, and integrating them as a planning aid that allows a more corporate and matrix-based system to be set up.
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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".