A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Community Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The various health and social care services provided in a given local area (i.e., place-based) must not only deliver primary care in proximity to the population, but act upstream on the social determinants of health. This type of care, when provided in a holistic and integrated manner, aims to improve the physical and mental health-but also the well-being and social capital-of individuals, families, groups and communities. This type of approach is known as Integrated Community Care (ICC). THEORY AND METHODS: This article was developed from a non-systematic review of scientific and grey literature followed by a qualitative analysis and researcher reflections on ICC. RESULTS: The article presents the core concepts of ICC, namely temporality, local area, health care, social care, proximity and integration. These concepts are unpacked and a conceptual diagram is set forth to put the dynamic links between the concepts into perspective. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The purpose of the article is to provide a conceptual clarification of ICC. Three examples of practise (from Switzerland, Quebec [Canada] and Italy) are used as illustrations to provide a better understanding of ICC and to open up horizons.
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 | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".