A comprehensive experience-based framework of actionable priorities to enhance Canada’s health and social care system: discussions with older persons, clinicians, managers, and decision-makers using nominal group technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing frameworks of older persons' experiences in health and social care systems are usually based on single stakeholder perspectives and focused on limited aspects that are independent from one another. This study aimed to describe such experiences from the perspective of diverse stakeholders and develop a comprehensive experience-based framework for actionable priorities to enhance Canada's health and social care system. METHODS: We adapted a nominal group technique with a qualitative approach. We formed four groups of stakeholders (4 older persons, 7 clinicians, 5 managers, 4 decision-makers) in the province of Quebec. First, participants individually completed a questionnaire to rank the six domains of an international set of metrics of quality of care for older persons in terms of their importance. Then, we conducted a remote discussion with each stakeholder group, obtained consensus on the priority domains, and explored personal/professional experiences explaining prioritization processes and what changes are needed. An inductive-deductive thematic analysis was conducted to develop a framework for actionable health and social care priorities. RESULTS: The framework included six key categories revolving around a core category of 'health equity'. (1) 'Access to services and care' focused on improved accessibility of healthcare navigators, primary and home care services, and end-of life care. (2) 'Respect for older persons' involved individuality and uniqueness, daily needs, advocacy in defence of vulnerability, and decision-making valuing care preferences. (3) 'Involvement of family and friends' encompassed formal recognition, responsibilities, and trajectories associated with caregiving. (4) 'Communication and education' consisted of adaptive communication between older persons, caregivers, and professionals and societal-level education and awareness-raising. (5) 'Coordination and integration of care' comprised health and social services organization, cross-sectoral approaches, and interdisciplinary collaboration. (6) 'Responsiveness to evolving needs' of older persons involved timely response to health transitions and promoting holistic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the complex challenges of caring for older persons. The framework suggests several areas for improvement in care practices and policies for older persons and caregivers. Proposed intervention targets include public healthcare system navigators, standardized goals of care practices respecting persons' wishes, formal recognition of caregiver contributions, society-level education, cross-sectoral initiatives, and holistic approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".