Integrating Health and Social Care for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Description of 16 Canadian Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes 16 Canadian programs designed to provide integrated primary care for older adults.Publicly available data were used to identify the "what" and the "how" of integration for each program.Most programs integrated with other healthcare or medical services (vs.social services).Mechanisms of integration varied; the most common mechanism was interprofessional teams.Only 25% of the programs formally engaged with autonomous physician-led primary care practices (where most Canadians receive their primary care).Findings suggest that integrated care is a priority across Canada but also highlight how far we have to go to achieve both vertical integration within the healthcare sector (primary, secondary and tertiary services) and horizontal integration across sectors (health and social). RésuméCet article décrit 16 programmes canadiens conçus pour fournir des soins primaires intégrés aux aînés.Les données publiquement accessibles ont été utilisées pour déterminer le « quoi » et le « comment » de l'intégration pour chacun des programmes.La plupart des programmes sont intégrés à d' autres services de santé ou médicaux (par opposition aux services sociaux).Les mécanismes d'intégration varient, le plus courant étant celui des équipes interprofessionnelles.Seulement 25 % des programmes se sont officiellement engagés dans des pratiques de soins primaires autonomes dirigées par des médecins (soit là où la plupart des Canadiens reçoivent leurs soins primaires).Les résultats indiquent que les soins intégrés sont une priorité partout au Canada, mais ils soulignent également le chemin que nous devons parcourir pour réaliser à la fois une intégration verticale au sein du secteur des soins de santé (services primaires, secondaires et tertiaires) et une intégration horizontale entre les secteurs (santé et services sociaux).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".