Evaluation of the implementation and effects of management through care and services pathways: A protocol study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In 2015, the Government of Quebec undertook a vast reorganization of its health and social services network. This reform mainly aimed to promote and simplify access to services for the population, contributing to the improvement of the quality and safety of care, and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the network. Since 2016, several health care organizations (HCOs) have pushed reform even further by developing management through care and service pathways (MCSP). This study aims to identify, in a processual manner, the different factors involved in implementing MCSP in different HCOs, in the turbulent context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method The methodology of this research project is based on developmental evaluation. The objective of developmental evaluation is to guide organizations and actors in the adaptation and development of innovations in complex and turbulent environments. Data will be collected over a three-year period using five strategies: i) organizational questionnaires; ii) analysis of clinical-administrative databases; iii) documentary analysis (grey and scientific literatures); iv) participant observations and v) semi-structured interviews with key actors involved in the implementation of MCSP. Discussion In addition to the operationalization of pathways, the implementation of MCSP i) involves transforming the governance of the health care organization both at the strategic and operational levels and ii) is a demanding process that requires changes in practices, modifications in the allocation and configuration of resources and the development of new collaborations between the different actors in the organization, the partners and the users involved in this transformation. Several studies claim that governance innovations can create conditions that are favourable to the emergence of innovations in terms of available services and responding to the needs of populations. This research will develop knowledge of the factors involved in implementing MCSP in complex and turbulent contexts and propose scale-up across the province.
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 | 0.305 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".