MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385412271 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068666

Impact of primary health care reforms in Quebec Health Care System: a systematic literature review protocol

2023· article· en· W4385412271 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paolo Landa, J. Lalonde, Frédéric Bergeron, Said Abasse Kassim, André Côté, Jean‐Baptiste Gartner, Elena Tànfani, Marina Resta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecBibliothèque et Archives nationales du QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsGrey literatureMedicineCINAHLHealth careProtocol (science)Data extractionGovernment (linguistics)Systematic reviewPublic healthInclusion (mineral)MEDLINENursingAlternative medicinePsychological interventionEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During the last decade the Quebec Public Health Care System (QPHCS) had an important transformation in primary care planning activity. The increase of the service demand together with a significant reduction of supply in primary care may be at risk of reducing access to health care services, with a negative impact on costs and health outcomes. The aims of this systematic literature review are to map and aggregate existing literature and evidence on the primary care provided in Quebec, showing the benefits and limitations associated with the health policies developed in the last two decades, and highlighting areas of improvement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL will be searched for articles and government reports between January 2000 and January 2022 using a prespecified search strategy. This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols and has been registered with PROSPERO. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be systematically searched using predefined keywords. The review will include any study design, with the exclusion of protocols, with a focus on the analysis of health care policies, outcomes, costs and management of the primary health care services, published in either English or French languages. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts, full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A customised data extraction form will be used to extract data from the included studies. Results will be presented in tabular format developed iteratively by the research team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required as exclusively secondary data will be used. Review findings will synthesise the characteristics and the impact of the reforms of QPHCS of the last two decades. Findings will therefore be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and through discussions with stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023421145.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.012
Bibliometrics0.0230.018
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.459 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→