Descriptive and process evaluation of a shared primary care program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study involved the conduct of a descriptive and process evaluation to examine the implementation and maintenance of an existing local shared care program: The Hamilton Health Service Organization Mental Health and Nutrition Program located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The program was organized to strengthen links between mental health, nutrition, and primary care services, to improve access to mental health and nutrition care, and to realize the benefits of improved communication, collaboration and mutual support among multiple practitioners, increased continuity of care, and increased family physicians’ comfort and skill in handling more complex problems. Method: A mixed-method, multi-measures evaluation design was used. Data were gathered from the program’s central patient database and by conducting focus groups. Results: Teams of practitioners provide comprehensive primary mental health and nutrition care. Collaboration and education opportunities are extensive although time constraints are an issue. Patients with a range of problems were assessed, treated, and referred among team members. There appears to be a decreased burden on external services. Conclusions & Discussion: This evaluation suggests that implementation and maintenance of shared care programs are possible within community practices.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".