Exploring New Models for Implementing Sustainable Integrated Health Access for People in Vulnerable Positions: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Multiple Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care is a strongly universal right across European welfare states; however, social inequalities in health persist. This literature argues that health care organization is an important but overlooked determinant of social inequalities in health, as health systems buffer or amplify structural and individual health determinants. The Client-Centered Coordination Platform (3CP) model offers integrated health access to people with severe mental illness, through core groups of professionals from across health and social services. OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on vulnerable people with severe mental health problems and aims to analyze how the model can give people with severe mental illness more integrated access to health and social care. This can form a stepping-stone for the upscaling of the 3CP model. METHODS: We conduct a 5-year multiple case study of 3 municipalities in Denmark, where 3CP is being implemented. In a 1-year pilot study, we expect to gather quantitative registry data from the municipalities and the Central Denmark Region to explore the characteristics of people included in 3CP. We will also collect qualitative data, including 21 hours of observations; 36 interviews with users, professionals, and managers; and 3 focus groups across the 3 municipalities. In a subsequent, 4-year qualitative study, we aim to conduct 120 hours of observations, 120 interviews, and 24 focus groups. In parallel with the qualitative study, we will facilitate a cocreation process to develop tools for sustaining integrated health access. RESULTS: As of January 2024, we have completed the individual interviews with users of 3CP and professionals and the focus groups. Individual interviews of managers will be conducted during the 1st quarter of 2024. The quantitative data are being collected. CONCLUSIONS: Inequality is one of the greatest challenges that European societies face. Understanding new and innovative approaches to integrated care may provide valuable solutions to the challenges posed. Especially understanding and designing health and social care systems that meet the needs and abilities of those users requiring them most, is vitally important to tackle inequality. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56197.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.092 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.008 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".