Engagement of patient and family advisors in health system redesign in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Globally, there has been a shift towards integrated care delivery and patient-centredness in the design of health services. Such a transformation is underway in Ontario, which is progressively using an interprofessional team-based approach known as Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) to deliver care. During their initial development, OHTs were required to integrate patient and families' preferences, experiences and opinions in the form of consultation and partnership with patient and family advisors (PFAs). This study aimed to understand how PFAs were involved in the early stages of planning for health system change and the perceived benefits of including PFAs in system reform. METHODS: = 110) members (e.g. clinicians). Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: We identified four themes; mechanisms of engagement, motivations to engage, challenges to PFA engagement and PFAs' impact and added value. Overall, participants viewed PFA engagement positively and PFAs felt valued and empowered. There remain logistical challenges around PFA compensation, and the amount of time and training expected of PFAs. However, all participants believed that developing an understanding of the patient, caregiver and family experience will strengthen the engagement of PFAs in OHT planning, decisions and policies. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse approaches to and stages of PFA engagement fostered meaningful and highly valued contributions to OHT development. These were considered critical to successfully achieving the mandate of patient-centred care reform.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".