The Shanghai case: a qualitative evaluation of community health reform in response to the challenge of population ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shanghai's health care system is facing a serious challenge of an ageing population, as 14% of its 17 million residents are 65 or older. In 2000, a community health reform was implemented to provide comprehensive and continuous primary care to community residents with a focus on seniors. The study employed the theoretical framework of examining primary care in terms of the constellation of its four unique elements (first contact, comprehensiveness, longitudinality and coordination) and three healthcare components (structure, process and outcome). The study aimed to evaluate the extent to which the reform has achieved its process goals and how the organizational context influenced the level of implementation. In-depth interviews with 25 health providers, 15 seniors and four community leaders were carried out. The study found that the Shanghai community health reform has improved the structure and process of primary care regarding first contact, comprehensiveness and longitunality. However, the reform is constrained by structural barriers on seniors' financial access to resources and the capacity of primary care providers. The previous organization system also constrains the reform in CHCs financing and administration. The Shanghai case illustrates that a broad societal view has to be taken when analysing health reforms, which requires the involvement of multiple sectors including the government, health providers and health consumers.
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 | 0.037 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".