Developing an inter-organizational community-based health network: an Australian investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Networks in health care typically involve services delivered by a defined set of organizations. However, networked associations between the healthcare system and consumers or consumer organizations tend to be open, fragmented and are fraught with difficulties. Understanding the role and activities of consumers and consumer groups in a formally initiated inter-organizational health network, and the impacts of the network, is a timely endeavour. This study addresses this aim in three ways. First, the Unbounded Network Inter-organizational Collaborative Impact Model, a purpose-designed framework developed from existing literature, is used to investigate the process and products of inter-organizational network development. Second, the impact of a network artefact is explored. Third, the lessons learned in inter-organizational network development are considered. Data collection methods were: 16 h of ethnographic observation; 10 h of document analysis; six interviews with key informants and a survey (n = 60). Findings suggested that in developing the network, members used common aims, inter-professional collaboration, the power and trust engendered by their participation, and their leadership and management structures in a positive manner. These elements and activities underpinned the inter-organizational network to collaboratively produce the Health Expo network artefact. This event brought together healthcare providers, community groups and consumers to share information. The Health Expo demonstrated and reinforced inter-organizational working and community outreach, providing consumers with community-based information and linkages. Support and resources need to be offered for developing community inter-organizational networks, thereby building consumer capacity for self-management in the community.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".