Organizational capacity and implementation change: a comparative case study of heart health promotion in Ontario public health agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a comparative case study that examines factors influencing changes in implementation of heart health promotion activities in Ontario public health units. The study compared two cases that experienced large changes in implementation from 1994 to 1996, but in opposite directions. Multiple data sources were used, with an emphasis on secondary analyses of quantitative surveys of health units and other community agencies, and in-depth interviews of public health staff, collected as part of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative Ontario Project. Guided by social ecological and organizational theories, changes in implementation were explained by examining changes in (1) organizational predisposition to undertake heart health promotion activities, (2) organizational practices to undertake these activities, (3) other internal organizational factors and (4) external system factors. Findings show that in communities with diverse characteristics, implementation change was most strongly influenced by an interplay of changes in internal features of public health agencies; notably, leadership, structure and staff skills. Findings support a social ecological approach to health promotion by demonstrating the importance of the institutional context in the implementation change process, the interaction of individual (skills) and organizational (structure) levels in explaining implementation change, and community context in shaping the change process. Findings also reinforce the value of strengthening capacity within public health agencies and suggest further research on the implementation change process, especially in different systems and over longer periods of time.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".