MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135991914 · doi:10.1177/1355819612473592

Not enough doctors or not enough needs? Refocusing health workforce planning from providers and services to populations and needs

2013· article· en· W2135991914 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Birch, Thomas Mason, Matt Sutton, William Whittaker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessWorkforcePer capitaNeeds assessmentWorkforce planningService (business)PopulationService providerHealth careService delivery frameworkMarketingEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of allocating services in accordance with population needs is well-established. Needs-based approaches to geographical resource allocation were established in the National Health Service in the UK in the 1970s, but the role of population needs has not extended to planning for the quantity and mix of health care services or for the providers required to deliver these services. We present a framework that integrates health service and workforce planning focused on responding to population needs. Using data from the General Household Survey for England over the period 1985-2006, we illustrate trends in health needs and service use per capita. Despite needs per capita falling, service use has increased. Rates of increase in service use are greater among those with less needs illustrating that, in the absence of appropriate planning methods, increases in service use may result from supplier influence rather than policy decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207