A process oriented approach to promoting collaborative practice: Incorporating complexity methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only recently have complexity informed methods been viewed as a strategy for changing health care systems and care delivery. AIMS: This article reports on participants' perceptions of being involved in a complexity informed educational approach to promote interprofessional collaboration in a system of care for children with disabilities. METHODS: Over a one-year period, all employees within a network of eight community agencies participated in three day-long workshops. A subset of twenty-four employees participated in eight monthly facilitated discussion groups. The workshops and discussion groups focused on processes rooted in complexity sciences which value small-scale interaction to improve the quality of discovery and shared problem solving. Learning group members (n = 24) and their facilitators (n = 4) participated in interviews and focus groups at the end of the project. RESULTS: Qualitative content analyses of the transcriptions of the interviews and focus groups revealed that participants identified tangible benefits of the process oriented approach. Challenges related to the lack of structure and emergent nature of the methods were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned include incorporating a gradual shift to emergent methods, fostering ownership from the beginning of the process, providing ongoing training to facilitators, flexibility and use of small-group scenarios.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".