Planning the scale-up of integrated care programs: A qualitative multiple-case study of case management for adults with complex needs in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with complex needs require health and social services from a variety of providers. Appropriate care for these people calls for integrated care. However, few studies have assessed the organizational conditions conducive to implementing integrated care programs in preparation for scale-up. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to 1) implement a case management program as part of an integrated care program initiative for adults with complex needs in health and social services organizations and primary care clinics, 2) evaluate the organizational factors influencing implementation, and 3) share recommendations from key stakeholders to facilitate scale-up. METHODS: A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted in two health and social services organizations and five primary care clinics in Quebec, Canada. We collected data through participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with stakeholders. The data were analyzed using deductive (RE-AIM framework) and inductive thematic analysis. Case stories were developed and then compared. RESULTS: Identifying patients targeted by the program was challenging. Better access to health information technology for case-finding was strongly recommended. Remuneration methods compatible with family physicians' expected levels of commitment to the program were needed to promote their engagement. Appropriate change management was also important to promote implementation and ensure sustainability of the program over time. CONCLUSION: This study may inform stakeholders interested in scaling up integrated care programs for adults with complex needs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".