Change management in an environment of ongoing primary health care system reform: A case study of Australian primary health care services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Globally, health reforms continue to be high on the health policy agenda to respond to the increasing health care costs and managing the emerging complex health conditions. Many countries have emphasised PHC to prevent high cost of hospital care and improve population health and equity. The existing tension in PHC philosophies and complexity of PHC setting make the implementation and management of these changes more difficult. This paper presents an Australian case study of PHC restructuring and how these changes have been managed from the viewpoint of practitioners and middle managers. METHODS: As part of a 5-year project, we interviewed PHC practitioners and managers of services in 7 Australian PHC services. FINDINGS: Our findings revealed a policy shift away from the principles of comprehensive PHC including health promotion and action on social determinants of health to one-to-one disease management during the course of study. Analysis of the process of change shows that overall, rapid, and top-down radical reforms of policies and directions were the main characteristic of changes with minimal communication with practitioners and service managers. The study showed that services with community-controlled model of governance had more autonomy to use an emergent model of change and to maintain their comprehensive PHC services. CONCLUSIONS: Change is an inevitable feature of PHC systems continually trying to respond to health care demand and cost pressures. The implementation of change in complex settings such as PHC requires appropriate change management strategies to ensure that the proposed reforms are understood, accepted, and implemented successfully.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".