MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406147664 · doi:10.1017/s0266462324000679

OP03 Regionalization And Patient-Centered Care: A Rapid-Realist Review And Implications For Health Technology Assessment

2024· review· en· W4406147664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Quigley, Catherine O’Donnell, Neil Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)MEDLINEHealth technologyData extractionQuality (philosophy)MedicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsNursingBusinessPsychologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Healthcare regionalization is the movement of responsibility of health care towards a regional body. It has been introduced in many countries and exists in many forms across high-, middle- and low-income countries. Supporters of regionalization purport that a more actively managed system, with better coordination and integration, could lead to improved quality and patient-centered care. However, evidence for this is unclear. Methods Systematic searches combining terms for regionalization and patient-centered care in MEDLINE identified 5,765 titles for review. Three levels of screening were conducted by two independent reviewers: title only, abstract and title, and full-paper review. Rapid-realist synthesis methodology was used to gather a deeper understanding of the relationship between healthcare regionalization and patient-centered care, seeking to identify potential mechanisms and the context in which these operate. We also sought to determine whether novel methodologies such as this can be used by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in an efficient manner that produces results directly applicable to decision-makers. Results Studies from high-income countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Italy, were included. The realist synthesis identified mechanisms by which whole healthcare-system regionalization can help or hinder the rollout of patient-centered care. Mechanisms were classified in relation to specific dimensions of patient-centered care including access and “patient as person.” Facilitators to the use of rapid-realist review in health policy include similarity of screening, searching, and extraction to traditional systematic review. Barriers include the scope of the literature considered relevant, length of time to familiarize with the method, and presentation of the findings in an accessible way for policymakers. Conclusions This is the first realist synthesis of the relationship between whole healthcare-system regionalization and patient-centered care. Regionalization may help or hinder achievement of patient-centered care. Policymakers should note barriers to, and facilitators of, patient-centered care in the context of large-scale health system reform. Rapid-realist review has applications for HTA, particularly in the exploration of non-standard interventions.

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)0.311
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.672
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3110.672
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0450.043
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0210.019
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207