Partnership, Collaboration, and Co-Production to Improve Patient Experience Beyond Conducting Surveys – Lessons from the Quebec Model, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objectives of this article are to present how, in the province of Quebec (Canada), healthcare and service partnerships have been implemented, to take stock of the current situation and to suggest ways to continue strengthening the model over the coming years, in Quebec and elsewhere in the world. Methods: Three methods were mobilized: (1) a review of the literature and reports published in recent years on implementations of partnerships in Quebec; (2) a survey sent to the persons responsible for partnerships in Quebec’s health and social services establishments; and (3) a working committee comprised of patient experts, partnership practitioners and researchers to develop recommendations to further consolidate The Patient Revolution that the province of Quebec is currently experiencing. Results: This Québec model, which has been under development since 2010, is based on the following principles: recognition of: (1) the experiential knowledge of individuals with health or psychosocial conditions who use the healthcare system; (2) the capacity of patients/service users to act as their own caregiver; (3) participation as full members of clinical or psychosocial teams, to complement the information needed to make informed decisions and achieve personal goals; and (4) the ability of individuals to make decisions for themselves, with the support of professionals and family members. The model has been implemented at various levels within the healthcare and social systems, as well as in education, training, and community health. There are also various levels of engagement, ranging from information provision to co-construction. However, in order to continue strengthening the model and support its consistent application throughout the health and social services network, recommendations have been made concerning the overall structure of partnership. Conclusions: The health care and service partnership model has proven to be highly adaptable for application in a variety of contexts. By recognizing the complementarity of scientific, professional, and experiential knowledge, the partnership model supports a levelling of power among stakeholders, both to address health issues as well as for setting priorities in the health system. It therefore offers a path to improving patient experience and outcomes.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".