Current performance and future trends of integrated care: a scientometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Integrated care has gained popularity in recent decades. This study aims to explore its global progress, current foci, and future trends.Methods: We conducted a scientometric analysis. Data (including subject categories, countries/territories, institutions, journals, citations, and author keywords) were exported from the Web of Science database. Publication number and citations, co-authorship between countries and institutions, co-occurrence of author keywords and cluster analysis were calculated with Histcite12.03.07 and VOSviewer1.6.4.Results: A total of 6127 articles were retrieved from 1997 to 2016. Results indicate the following: (1) The USA, UK, and Canada led research with the most publications, citations, and productive institutions. (2) The top 10 cited papers and journals (such as BMC Health Services Research) are crucial for the knowledge distribution. (3) The 50 author keywords were clustered into five groups, including digital medicine and e-health, community health and chronic disease management, primary health care and mental health, health care system for infectious diseases, health care reform and qualitative research, social care and health policy services.Conclusions: This paper confirmed that integrated care is undergoing rapid development with more categories involved and additional collaboration networks established. Various research foci are forming like economic incentives mechanism for integration, e-health data mining, systematically quantitative study. Moreover, an urgent need exists for the development of the performance measurement for policies and models.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".