PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PRACTITIONERS IN THE HEALTH SECTOR: FROM THE QUEBEC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE TO PM LITERATURE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More and more health care systems are taking the project management route. The present article sets out the results of a literature review (who was produced with the help of ABI/INFORM GLOBAL and covers the period from 1979 to May 2017 inclusively) dealing with project management in the health sector. Consequently, this paper is not a comparative analysis of Quebec’s health systems vis-à-vis the rest of the world’s. Nor is it a theoretical analysis of project management and strategic health systems management. This paper is of interest to practitioners who must manage their health services and social services on a by-project basis because their organization has turned onto the project path. So, what does the discipline of Project Management (a discipline that sees itself as being oriented to practitioners) have to offer to practitioners in the health sector?Results of the literature review indicate that the information technology project management in health sector is the favorite topic of researchers. Furthermore, very little of the research on health sector project management is published in the project management discipline’s journals and, on the other hand, a minority of the articles reviewed make reference to the works that are published in these PM Journals. Although the present article review focuses only on articles with the key words “Health” and “Project Management”, we can conclude that if project management wishes to become a discipline associated with health, it must promote the initiation of research that clearly identifies the real issues involved in a project and its management, in relation to the primary mission of health care systems: care, health services and social services.This paper presents the importance given to project management in the health sector and the theme of health in project management. It demonstrates the lack of emphasis on project management as a lever for health care, health services and social services which is the primary mission of healthcare systems and its practitioners.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".