OP175 A National Perspective On Criteria And Methods For Resource Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Decisions about which health and social services to include in the publicly funded services basket are complex. Several criteria need to be taken into account in decision-making (DM), as well as ethical, economic and organizational issues. Nowadays a global consensus supports the view that citizens’ values and preferences must guide DM. To elicit these values and concerns regarding publicly funded services, the Quebec Health and Welfare Commissioner recently conducted a vast public consultation on the population viewpoints. Parts of this consultation targeted criteria for DM, approaches to assess new or current services and perspectives on appropriateness of care. Methods: Various consultation methods were used in complementary steps: a representative population survey (n=1850), six regional focus groups (n=62), a call for briefs (n=52) for groups that wished to share their views, consultation meetings (n=35) with diverse stakeholders and a call for personal accounts (n=2633). It also held five deliberation sessions (18 citizens and 9 experts) over the course of the project on major related issues. Results: The need to ensure the appropriateness of covered services was one of the strongest themes emerging from the consultation. Citizens want that the appropriateness evaluation be carried out under certain conditions: transparently, in explicit DM processes, using criteria that are clear and adaptable according to the disease or problem. The whole evaluation process needs to be well documented, showing clearly the data used and rejected, so that they can understand the decision and see on what basis it is supported. Among the usual criteria for DM, those related to cost are less valued whereas others are considered incomplete. Conclusions: Citizens have clear viewpoints and expectations regarding DM criteria and processes for resource allocation. Decision-makers must take them into account to ensure that the basket of insured services is representative of social values and preferences.
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 | 0.099 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".