Providers’ Perspectives on the Implementation of Mandated Local Health Networks for Older People in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In many countries, integrated care has been implemented to improve the quality, efficiency and patient experience of services. Understanding how integrated care is adopted in different settings may give insights into where, how and why different components of the organisational design work. The aim of this article is to understand how and why integrated care for older people has been implemented in different contexts from the perspective of providers. THEORY AND METHODS: The study uses an innovative composite framework for the implementation of integrated care models, which posits that structural, organisational, provider, innovation and patient factors influence implementation along six dimensions of integration. A qualitative multiple case study was done of three cases in Québec using document analysis and semi-structured interviews of 28 providers. Descriptive comparisons and thematic analysis were performed. RESULTS: Providers considered that structural (government policy) and organisational (mergers) factors highly influenced the implementation of organisational and functional dimensions of integration, at the detriment of clinical integration. Provider, innovation and patient factors mildly or moderately influenced the implementation of integration. CONCLUSION: Structural and organisational factors were necessary conditions for the implementation of administrative components of integration, with great variability in the implementation of some clinical components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".