Governance, Health Policy Implementation and the Added Value of Regionalization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this paper we focus on governance and the added value of regionalization in the context of health policy implementation. What are regional boards' patterns of action in the governance process?How do these patterns favour policy implementation? ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: To enhance our understanding of the role of regional boards in governance processes, we relied on four conceptual constructs that corresponded to models of collective action: political, technocratic, democratic and cognitive. Alongside the four models, we analyzed the impact of governance on health policy implementation using Mazmanian and Sabatier's general analytical framework, which identifies three types of variables that affect public policy implementation: (1) variables related to the complexity of the problem, (2) statutory variables that structure the implementation of the policy and (3) non-statutory variables related to the context. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative, longitudinal case study of the regional implemention of the Program to Combat Cancer in Quebec. FINDINGS: This research stresses the added value of a clinico-administrative governance of change, whereby regional boards, in synergy with clinical leaders, participate in the orientation of collective action. Analysis of the regional board's patterns of action reveals the utility of combined technocratic, democratic, political and cognitive actions.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it