Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Theoretically, a health system has been described in terms of integration being the coordination of health services and collaboration amongst provider organizations. The components of an integrated health system remain inconclusive. Although senior healthcare executives establish structures and designs which facilitate the delivery of integrated care, their perspectives of a health system have not been explored. The purpose of this paper is to present senior healthcare executives’ perspectives of a health system which, when combined, form a model for developing an integrated health system. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative methodology and a multi-case study design, 11 presidents and 4 senior vice presidents of major healthcare organizations or systems in Ontario Canada were selected from a target population of 246 senior healthcare executives to engage in 1 h interviews each. Critical case sampling was applied in the selection of the study sample. Interviews were conducted between December 2017 and February 2018. Findings Senior healthcare executives expressed four distinct perspectives of a health system: systems, institutional, clinical and governance. When combined, the four perspectives form an original research-based concept or model for an integrated health system. Originality/value This paper conveys results of personal interviews with senior healthcare executives and presents a proposed model for an integrated health system based on their four distinct perspectives of a health system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".