Cross-sector Service Provision in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Meeting the complex health needs of people often requires interaction among numerous different sectors. No one service can adequately respond to the diverse care needs of consumers. Providers working more effectively together is frequently touted as the solution. Cross-sector service provision is defined as independent, yet interconnected sectors working together to better meet the needs of consumers and improve the quality and effectiveness of service provision. Cross-sector service provision is expected, yet much remains unknown about how it is conceptualised or its impact on health status. This umbrella review aims to clarify the critical attributes that shape cross-sector service provision by presenting the current state of the literature and building on the findings of the 2004 review by Sloper. METHODS: Literature related to cross-sector service provision is immense, which poses a challenge for decision makers wishing to make evidence-informed decisions. An umbrella review was conducted to articulate the overall state of cross-sector service provision literature and examine the evidence to allow for the discovery of consistencies and discrepancies across the published knowledge base. FINDINGS: Sixteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven themes emerged: Focusing on the consumer, developing a shared vision of care, leadership involvement, service provision across the boundaries, adequately resourcing the arrangement, developing novel arrangements or aligning with existing relationships, and strengthening connections between sectors. Future research from a cross-organisational, rather than individual provider, perspective is needed to better understand what shapes cross-sector service provision at the boundaries. CONCLUSION: Findings aligned closely with the work done by Sloper and raise red flags related to reinventing what is already known. Future researchers should look to explore novel areas rather than looking into areas that have been explored at length. Evaluations of out-comes related to cross-sector service provision are still needed before any claims about effectiveness can be made.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".