Going beyond the identification of change facilitators to effectively implement a new model of services: Lessons learned from a case example in paediatric rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify facilitators and barriers to service reorganization, how they evolved and interacted to influence change during the implementation of a new service delivery model of paediatric rehabilitation. METHODS: Over 3 years, different stakeholders responded to SWOT questionnaires (n = 139) and participated in focus groups (n = 19) and telephone interviews (n = 13). A framework based on socio constructivist theories made sense of the data. RESULTS: Facilitators related to the programme's structure (e.g. funding), the actors (e.g. willingness to test the new service model) and the change management process (e.g. participative approach). Some initial facilitators became barriers (e.g. leadership lacked at the end), while other barriers emerged (e.g. lack of tools). Understanding factor interactions requires examining the multiple actors' intentions, actions and consequences and their relations with structural elements. CONCLUSIONS: Analysing facilitators and barriers helped better understand the change processes, but this must be followed by concrete actions to successfully implement new paediatric rehabilitation models.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".