MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390942684 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic23673

Using Co-Design and Engagement Principles for Health System Transformation: Our Lessons Learned

2023· article· en· W4390942684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacobi Elliott, Alexander Smith, Linda Crossley-Hauch, Sarah Jarmain, Amber Alpaugh-Bishop, Vala Gylfadottir, Matthew J. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareMiddlesex London Health UnitMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Health equityEquity (law)Health careCommunity engagementNursingMedical educationBest practicePublic relationsPsychologySociologyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Middlesex London Ontario Health Team (ML OHT), comprised of multiple health and social care partners, aims to support the primary and secondary healthcare needs of people living in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada. Co-design and engagement approaches have been intentionally and carefully embedded in all levels of the OHT work. The OHT applies co-design and engagement principles through the co-leadership of patient/caregiver partners on governing committees and strategic planning, the involvement of patients/caregivers on project implementation and evaluation working groups, and through the development of a patient/caregiver council. Through relationships with local patients/clients, caregiver partners, providers, and health system administrators, co-design processes are being used to collectively identify, develop, implement, and evaluate health system improvement strategies. Partnerships with patients and caregivers are guided by an equity, diversity, and inclusion matrix to ensure patient/caregiver representation aligns with the demographics of our local population. Workshop Purpose: Over our two-year journey, we have learned a lot about co-design and engagement practices, and how to embed approaches into an integrated health system. Embedding engagement practices into every level of the structure, and every stream of work, is an ongoing, continuous learning journey. The ML OHT has recently focused on building partnerships with underserved and underrepresented populations. Through this work, the team has adjusted engagement practices to align with the needs and desires of specific populations. During this workshop, we hope the audience can learn from our experiences, and share some of their own insights and learnings. Short Statement: Embedding co-design and engagement practices into an integrated health system structure from bottom to top, is an ongoing, continuous learning journey. ML OHT would like to share lessons learned and hear from the audience about ways to adjust practices for specific populations. Objectives and Workshop Structure: The interactive workshop structure and objectives, co-presented by ML OHT team members (staff members and patient/caregiver partner), will include: 1. Introduction and Background (25mins) - i) Share our co-design structure and framework, ii) Discuss how we evaluate our co-design participation and identify gaps; iii) Review specific engagement strategies for different groups/populations; iv) Describe how to apply co-design principles and findings to strategy/program development and operations; and, 2. Interactive Case Study (20mins) - v) Conduct an interactive case study exercise where audience members can share their own experiences and build a custom engagement strategy for unique stakeholder groups; and 3. Sharing Learnings and Closing (15mins) Audience and Engagement: This interactive workshop would be appropriate for anyone with a role in system improvement (including providers, patients/caregivers, leaders, researchers) with various levels of co-design experiences, from novice to expert. Key Messages: Following the presentation, participants will leave with the following messages: i) meaningful co-design takes time and is a continuous learning journey, ii) consideration of co-design approaches is needed at all levels of a strategy (e.g. on-the-ground implementation work, up to the governance table), iii) evaluation and ongoing assessment of co-design participation is necessary to ensure appropriate engagement, and iv) co-design approaches should be appropriately adjusted to meet the needs of the population.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.033
Scholarly communication0.0190.023
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207