MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343257349 · doi:10.1071/ah15198

Scoping of models to support population-based regional health planning and management: comparison with the regional operating model in Victoria, Australia

2016· article· en· W2343257349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Frédéric Lévesque, John J. O'Dowd, Éidín Ní Shé, Jan-Willem Weenink, Jane Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Fredericton
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsPopulation healthOperating modelPopulationMetropolitan areaComputer scienceHealth careHealth economicsOperations researchProcess managementOperations managementManagement scienceBusinessMedicineEngineeringEconomicsMarketingEconomic growthEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The aim of the present study was to try to understand the breadth and comprehensiveness of a regional operating model (ROM) developed within the Victorian Department of Health's North West Metropolitan Region office in Melbourne, Australia. Methods A published literature search was conducted, with additional website scanning, snowballing technique and expert consultation, to identify existing operating models. An analytical grid was developed covering 16 components to evaluate the models and assess the exhaustiveness of the ROM. Results From the 34 documents scoped, 10 models were identified to act as a direct comparator to the ROM. These concerned models from Australia (n=5) and other comparable countries (Canada, UK). The ROM was among the most exhaustive models, covering 13 of 16 components. It was one of the few models that included intersectoral actions and levers of influence. However, some models identified more precisely the planning tools, prioritisation criteria and steps, and the allocation mechanisms. Conclusions The review finds that the ROM appears to provide a wide coverage of aspects of planning and integrates into a single model some of the distinctive elements of the other models scoped. What is known about the topic? Various jurisdictions are moving towards a population-based approach to manage public services with regard to the provision of individual medical and social care. Various models have been proposed to guide the planning of services from a population health perspective. What does this paper add? This paper assesses the coverage of attributes of operating models supporting a population health planning approach to the management of services at the regional or local level. It provides a scoping of current models proposed to organise activities to ensure an integrated approach to the provision of services and compares the scoped models to a model recently implemented in Victoria, Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper highlights the relative paucity of operating models describing in concrete terms how to manage medical and social services from a population perspective and encourages organisations that are accountable for securing population health to clearly articulate their own operating model. It outlines strengths and potential gaps in current 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.365
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207