All talk…only a little action: a reflection on embedding equity into integrated care models in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) are a recently introduced model of delivery intended to integrate services to deliver connected care to defined populations in Ontario, Canada. The Quadruple Aim advocates for improving patient experience, reducing cost, advancing population health, and improving the provider experience; it is meant to be a guide for OHTs for performance outcomes and as a framework for evaluation and reporting. The Quintuple Aim, incorporating an added focus on health equity, has recently been introduced to OHTs, where equity is also built into continuous quality improvement requirements. As embedded OHT research fellows, we recognize our key role in supporting equity in healthcare delivery and programs. However, we also observe the challenges to generating actionable initiatives to integrate equity into OHTs. Objective: The objective of this presentation is to describe equity initiatives being incorporated in four OHTs in Ontario, Canada and to identify the barriers and facilitators at the micro, meso and macro levels. This presentation is aimed at those involved in integrated care research, policy, practice, and education. Methods: We will use a multiple case study design to describe the contexts of four integrated care models representing large, mid, and small urban regions of the province. This work is guided by the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care, which conceptualizes different domains of integrated care. We will include multiple data sources from each OHT, including key documents, formal and informal community partnerships, the level and nature of engagement with equity-deserving groups in governance processes, the extent to which equity is emphasized in strategic plans and other documents, and the resources available, we share insights gleaned on barriers and facilitators to applying an equity lens. Key Results: We identify challenges related to data availability for health equity decision making and health systems planning. Specifically, difficulties exist in accessing meaningful and linked data to understand OHT attributed populations; these difficulties are compounded when seeking data specific to equity deserving groups and when attempting to link equity relevant indicators to health system indicators. Furthermore, meaningful engagement with equity deserving groups in order to build relationships requires time and resources that are difficult to source; such engagement is particularly challenging in an environment of limited financial resources, where frequent reporting and pressure to quickly deliver outcomes is emphasized. OHTs are collaborative governance models composed of representation from member organizations, patients, and academics; this collaborative approach to governance can be a facilitator to embedding equity deserving groups into the structure of OHTs. Next Steps: Ontario Health Teams require support in creating comprehensive equity approaches that are specific to the needs of their communities and teams; further work is needed to better understand the needs of OHTs in this regard.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.069 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| 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".