Dashboards to Support Implementation of the Quebec Alzheimer Plan: Evaluation Study With Regional and Professional Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health organizations face the critical task of executing and overseeing comprehensive health care. To address the challenges associated with this task, evidence-based dashboards have emerged as valuable tools. Since 2016, the regional health organizations of Quebec, Canada, have been responsible for ensuring implementation of the Quebec Alzheimer Plan (QAP), a provincial plan that aims to reinforce the capacity of primary care services to detect, diagnose, and treat persons with dementia. Despite the provincial scope of the QAP, the diverse material and human resources across regions introduce variability in the interest, utility, and specific needs associated with these dashboards. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the interest and utility of dashboards to support the QAP implementation, as well as to determine the needs for improving these aspects according to the perspectives of various types of professionals involved across regions. METHODS: An evaluative study using qualitative methods was conducted within a collaborative research approach involving different stakeholders, including the ministerial advisor and the four project managers responsible for supporting the implementation of the QAP, as well as researchers/scientific advisors. To support these organizations, we developed tailored, 2-page paper dashboards, detailing quantitative data on the prevalence of dementia, the use of health services by persons with dementia, and achievements and challenges of the QAP implementation in each organization's jurisdiction. We then conducted 23 focus groups with the managers and leading clinicians involved in the implementation of the QAP of each regional health organization. Real-time notes were taken using a structured observation grid. Content analysis was conducted according to different regions (organizations with university mandates or nearby organizations, labeled "university/peripheral"; organizations for which only part of the territory is in rural areas, labeled "mixed"; and organizations in remote or isolated areas, labeled "remote/isolated") and according to different types of participants (managers, leading clinicians, and other participants). RESULTS: Participants from organizations in all regions expressed interest in these dashboards and found them useful in several ways. However, they highlighted the need for indicators on orphan patients and other health care providers. Differences between regions were observed, particularly in the interest in continuity of care in university/peripheral regions and the need for diagnostic tools adapted to the culture in remote/isolated regions. CONCLUSIONS: These dashboards support the implementation of an Alzheimer Plan and contribute to the emergence of a learning health care system culture. This project allows each region to increase its monitoring capacity for the implementation of the QAP and facilitates reflection among individuals locally carrying out the implementation. The perspectives expressed will guide the preparation of the next iteration of the dashboards.
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 | 0.054 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".