Studying integrated health care systems with a structurationist approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To implement an integrated health care system is not an easy task and to ensure its sustainability is yet more difficult. AIM: Discuss how a structurationist approach can shed light on the stakes of these processes and guide the managers of such endeavours. THEORY AND METHOD: Structuration theory [1] has been used by numerous authors to cast new light on complex organizational phenomena. One of the central tenets of this theory is that social systems, such as integrated health care systems, are recurrent social practices across time-space and are characterized by structural properties which simultaneously constrain and enable the constitutive social actors who reproduce and transform the system through their practices. We will illustrate our theoretical standpoint with empirical material gathered during the study of an integrated health care system for the frail elderly in Quebec, Canada. This system has been implemented in 1997 and is still working well in 2010. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: To implement an integrated health care system that is both effective and sustainable, its managers must shrewdly allow for the existing system and progressively introduce changes in the way managers and practitioners at work in the system view their role and act on a daily basis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".