A Systematic Literature Review Comparing Primary and Community Health Care Indicators and Measurement Frameworks
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
Measurement frameworks are essential in primary and community healthcare to help reduce unsustainable healthcare costs in many jurisdictions including Ontario, Canada. This paper presents a literature review of studies measuring the success of primary and community healthcare initiatives around the world carried out after 2003 in more than 15 countries. Some initiatives were fully deployed and others were in research or pilot mode. A comprehensive set of indicators is identified spanning four categories and nine domain areas. We discuss our observations showing the discrepancies that exist amongst the various studies and analyze the problems associated with these gaps. We proposed a new approach that we intend to pursue in more detail in future work. There is a lack of maturity in measuring the success of primary and community healthcare initiatives. There are opportunities in improving the situation by defining aggregate indices, working on standardization of indicators, and identifying measures that contribute to improving the system in place based on mining existing data and using a heuristics-based approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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