Measuring healthcare integration: Operationalization of a framework for a systems evaluation of palliative care structures, processes, and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare integration is a priority in many countries, yet there remains little direction on how to systematically evaluate this construct to inform further development. The examination of community-based palliative care networks provides an ideal opportunity for the advancement of integration measures, in consideration of how fundamental provider cohesion is to effective care at end of life. AIM: This article presents a variable-oriented analysis from a theory-based case study of a palliative care network to help bridge the knowledge gap in integration measurement. DESIGN: Data from a mixed-methods case study were mapped to a conceptual framework for evaluating integrated palliative care and a visual array depicting the extent of key factors in the represented palliative care network was formulated. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study included data from 21 palliative care network administrators, 86 healthcare professionals, and 111 family caregivers, all from an established palliative care network in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The framework used to guide this research proved useful in assessing qualities of integration and functioning in the palliative care network. The resulting visual array of elements illustrates that while this network performed relatively well at the multiple levels considered, room for improvement exists, particularly in terms of interventions that could facilitate the sharing of information. CONCLUSION: This study, along with the other evaluative examples mentioned, represents important initial attempts at empirically and comprehensively examining network-integrated palliative care and healthcare integration in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".