The Impact of Health Care Funding on Interprofessional Collaboration and Integrated Service Delivery in Primary and Allied Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving funding models and implementing policies that facilitate greater interprofessional collaboration and integration at the primary and allied health level could improve the ongoing quality and safety and future sustainability of the wider health care system by reducing inefficiencies and inequalities. Defining these key health care funding-related models, policies, and concepts, identifying research gaps, and systematically mapping the associated literature will inform future research on this topic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to provide a descriptive overview of contemporary health care funding models and the key policies involved in the delivery of primary and allied health care. Further, it will investigate the impact these models and policies have on interprofessional collaboration and integrated service delivery at the primary and allied health care levels. METHODS: A search of published and grey literature will be conducted using the following databases: the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and Web of Science. The search will be limited to resources available in the English language and published since 2011. Following the search, an independent screening of titles and abstracts will be undertaken by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer available to resolve any potential disagreements. Full-text resources will then be assessed against the inclusion criteria following the same process. Extracted data will be presented using a convergent narrative approach, accompanied by tables and figures. RESULTS: Electronic database searches have retrieved 8013 articles. The results of this scoping review are expected in May 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review will be used to inform future research projects investigating the role of primary health care funding, interprofessional collaboration, and service integration in improving health care access, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36448.
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 | 0.146 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.012 |
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".