The state-of-play in physician health systems leadership research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper aims to review a decade of evidence on physician participation in health system leadership with the view to better understand the current state of scholarship on physician leadership activity in health systems. This includes examining the available evidence on both physicians' experiences of health systems leadership (HSL) and the impact of physician leadership on health system reform. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A state-of-the-art review of studies (between 2007 and 2017); 51 papers were identified, analyzed thematically and synthesized narratively. FINDINGS: Six main themes were identified in the literature as follows: (De)motivation for leadership, leadership readiness and career development, work demands and rewards, identity matters: acceptance of self (and other) as leader, leadership processes and relationships across health systems and leadership in relation to health system outcomes. There were seemingly contradictory findings across some studies, pointing to the influence of regional and cultural contextual variation on leadership practices as well entrenched paradoxical tensions in health system organizations. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Future research should examine the influence of varying structural and psychological empowerment on physician leadership practices. Empirical attention to paradoxical tensions (e.g. between empowerment and control) in HSL is needed, with specific attention to questions on how such tensions influence leaders' decision-making about system reform. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This review provides a broad synthesis of diverse papers about physician participation in health system leadership. Thus, it offers a comprehensive empirical synthesis of contemporary concerns and identifies important avenues for future research.
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 | 0.080 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".