Stakeholder Participation in System Change: A New Conceptual Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent change in Canada's primary care system led to the introduction of Nurse Practitioner-Led clinics. The literature suggests that stakeholders can influence system change initiatives. However, very little is known about healthcare stakeholder motivations, particularly stakeholders who are seen as resistors to change. AIM: To examine stakeholder participation in the system change process that led to the introduction of the first Nurse Practitioner-Led clinic in Ontario. METHODS: This single case study included two site visits, semistructured individual tape-recorded interviews, and the examination of relevant public documents. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Sixteen individuals from different healthcare sectors and professions participated in the interviews and 20 documents were reviewed. Six key themes emerged from the data. Linking Evidence to Action The findings from the study present a new perspective on stakeholder participation that includes both those who supported the proposed change and those who advocated for a different change. The findings identify stakeholder activities used to shape, share, and protect their visions for system change. The conceptual model presented in this study adds to the understanding of challenges and complexities involved in healthcare system change. Understanding why and how stakeholders participate in change can help healthcare leaders in planning activities to enhance stakeholder involvement in healthcare system change.
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 | 0.031 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".