Integrated Community Care 4All: Effectiveness Principles for Transforming Seniors Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020, the Transnational Forum on Integrated Community Care (TransForm) published “Integrated Community Care 4All: New Principles for Care”. Therein, TransForm articulated a vision for Integrated Community Care (ICC), to engage and empower people in local communities to move beyond health and social care ‘delivery’ in favour of genuine ‘co-development’ with the individuals and communities that are traditionally seen as care recipients. TransForm’s vision of ICC is focussed on supporting people’s priorities and life goals and improving both health and social cohesion. Importantly, it underscores the importance of valuing and fostering the capacities of all to become change agents, co-producing health and wellbeing. In this presentation, two TransForm collaborators (a philanthropic funder and a health systems researcher) will examine the potential of TransForm’s approach to ICC to serve as a tool to re-shape community care by, with, and for seniors in Canada. First, we will review TransForm’s seven effectiveness principles for ICC, which focus on co-developing funding and governance structures for health and well being, enabling citizen participation, building resilient communities, and evaluating outcomes to inform and adapt service delivery. We will then consider how TransForm’s effectiveness principles for ICC can guide the development, delivery, and accountability of seniors community care initiatives, and the policy and practice shifts such an approach would require. Finally, we will invite reflections and dialogue on the relevance and applicability of TransForm’s ICC effectiveness principles, and ways they might be taken up to empower and engage seniors, informal care providers, service providers, and system partners to create conditions in communities where seniors can thrive.
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 | 0.130 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".