MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412492223 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327464

Elucidating insights on how care was prioritized, adapted, and missed during and post pandemic

2025· article· en· W4412492223 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lianne Jeffs, Jacqueline Limoges, Tracey DasGupta, Lisa Di Prospero, Alexandra Harris, Jane Merkley, Benjamin Rosen, Adebisi Akande, Frances Bruno, Agnes Black, Linda M. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareToronto Public HealthProfessional Engineers OntarioSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science CentreAthabasca UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThematic analysisHealth carePandemicExploratory researchHealthcare systemPsychologyQualitative researchVariety (cybernetics)NursingMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, healthcare systems continue to recover and manage system demands, including our sustained HHR pressures exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Health system leaders need to understand how healthcare was adapted during the pandemic, what contributed to these changes, and the impact of these changes to inform future efforts. The overarching research questions included: What changes to models of care were made during COVID-19 and post-recovery? What factors contributed to changes in models of care? What was the impact of these changes? An exploratory interpretative descriptive qualitative study was undertaken to describe what HHR strategies and changes to models of care delivery were employed during the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic recovery. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted where an investigation team of research staff identified, coded, and categorized prominent themes that emerged in the interview data. A total of 118 participants from a variety of healthcare professionals and leadership positions across five healthcare organizations in the greater Toronto area in Ontario and 1 setting from British Columbia were interviewed. The following three themes were identified during the inductive analysis: 1) prioritizing care based on system capacity, patient volume and complexity; 2) adapting care by innovating, clustering, and taking shortcuts; and 3) being impacted by prioritized and adapted care. Adapting and prioritizing care resulted in missed or delayed care and moral distress in healthcare professionals. Study findings call for leaders to develop and deploy anticipatory adaptive strategies at the organizational level to mitigate pressures related to system capacity and patient volume and complexity. In turn, anticipatory adaptive strategies can guide efforts by healthcare professionals to manage and adapt their clinical tasks, workload, and demands, ensuring patient safety and workforce resilience at the clinical microsystem level.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→