Multiple Perspectives Analysis of the Implementation of an Integrated Care Model for Older Adults in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Integrated care models for older adults are increasingly utilised in healthcare systems to overcome fragmentations. Several groups of stakeholders are involved in the implementation of integrated care. The aim of this study is to identify the main concerns, convergences and divergences in perspectives of stakeholders involved in the implementation of a centralised system-wide integrated care model for older adults in Quebec. THEORY AND METHODS: Qualitative multiple-case study. Semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders: policymakers (n = 11), providers (n = 29), managers (n = 34), older adult patients (n = 14) and caregivers (n = 9), including document analysis. Thematic analysis of the views of stakeholders along the lines of the six dimensions of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. RESULTS: While patients/caregivers were mostly concerned by their unmet individual needs, policymakers, managers and providers were concerned by structural barriers to integrating care. Stakeholders' diverse perspectives indicated implementation gaps in a top-down implementation context. CONCLUSION: Mandated system-wide integration appears to have structural, organizational, functional, and normative transformations, but its clinical changes are more uncertain in view of the observed divergent perspectives of actors. It will be interesting to explore if the systemic changes are precursors of clinical changes or, on the contrary, explains the lack of clinical changes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".