Organizational Capabilities for Integrating Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of integrated care interventions is highly dependent on the internal and collective capabilities of the organizations in which they are implemented. Yet, organizational capabilities are rarely described, understood, or measured with sufficient depth and breadth in empirical studies or in practice. Assessing these capabilities can contribute to understanding why some integrated care interventions are more effective than others. We identified, organized, and assessed survey instruments that measure the internal and collective organizational capabilities required for integrated care delivery. We conducted an expert consultation and searched Medline and Google Scholar databases for survey instruments measuring factors outlined in the Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care Framework. A total of 58 instruments were included in the review and assessed based on their psychometric properties, practical considerations, and applicability to integrated care efforts. This study provides a bank of psychometrically sound instruments for describing and comparing organizational capabilities. Greater use of these instruments across integrated care interventions and studies can enhance standardized comparative analyses and inform change management. Further research is needed to build an evidence base for these instruments and to explore the associations between organizational capabilities and integrated care processes and outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 it