Cross-ministerial collaboration related to paediatric rehabilitation for children with disabilities and their families in one Canadian province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The delivery of paediatric rehabilitation services is complex due to the involvement of different service sectors and diverse models of care. Parents of children with disabilities find it challenging to navigate successfully through complicated service delivery systems. Cross-sectoral collaboration to improve continuity of care for children with disabilities and their families is viewed as ideal in public policies. The purpose of this research was to explore how ministerial cultures, processes and structures influence inter-ministerial collaboration for the purpose of enhancing continuity of care for children with disabilities and their families in a Western Canadian province. Six key informants from three government Ministries that funded paediatric rehabilitation services participated in individual, semi-structured interviews between January and May of 2007. Nineteen provincial public policy documents were reviewed. Hall's framework guided the analysis of the key informant interviews and policy documents. Influences of organisational culture, processes and structures on cross-ministerial collaboration were classified into the categories of ideas-values and beliefs that underlie policy development, interests-influence of various policy actors and institutions-structures and processes used to deliver public policy. Fundamental ideological and structural differences were apparent across the three ministries that affected the ease of inter-ministerial collaboration towards ensuring continuity of care for children with disabilities. Variations in ideas (philosophy and values) and institutions (geography and service delivery structure, relationships with regional governance, mission and function, choice of policy instruments and financial processes) are presented and implications for service delivery are explored.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".