Unpacking the Design, Implementation and Adoption of Community-Integrated Healthcare Services in Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-based integrated care initiatives operate within the community and are designed to coordinate care around peoples needs. Owing to their multi-dimensional and multi-component design, community-based integrated healthcare models offer more comprehensive services to enhance the care of individuals with complex health and social needs. Many community-based integrated care models show improved access, patient satisfaction, cost savings, and reduced health system usage. This workshop showcases innovations in community-driven integrated healthcare initiatives that address inequities in health and healthcare for Indigenous populations.A team at the University of Alberta CARE Lab has developed an implementation framework based on global evidence. The framework outlines key mechanisms and outcomes for the design, implementation, and uptake of community-based integrated healthcare services in Indigenous communities. A key determinant identified in the framework for successful implementation is the employment of local Indigenous health workers who participate in co-designing health programs and facilitate their implementation. Thus, sufficient workforce resourcing is crucial for successful program implementation, particularly where current programs rely on the capacity of an already overburdened local workforce. Moreover, implementation strategies in Indigenous communities have focused on incorporating the expertise of Indigenous community members, Elders, and health planners; many of whom have unique skills, particularly in the fields of cultural adaptation, tailoring interventions, and appropriate implementation to mitigate barriers to implementation. Audience: This workshop is intended for community-based practitioners, health promoters, community members, patients, health system decision-makers, and academics Approach: The aims of this workshop are to () Reflect and build knowledge on the factors that enable or impede the participation of local Indigenous health workers in the co-design and implementation of integrated care services, and the skills and capacity required; (2) Identify mechanisms critical to the design, implementation, and uptake of community-based integrated initiatives in Indigenous communities. The workshop will begin with a brief presentation on the topic of equity in implementation practice (5 mins), followed by a brief presentation (5 mins) of a community-based integrated healthcare model example focused on culturally safe reproductive and maternity care for Indigenous families in northern, rural, and remote communities. In small group discussions (20 minutes), participants will reflect on the following questions: What resources or assets are critical to advocate for in the community or within organizations to support implementing and sustaining community-based integrated care programs? What evidence is needed to support implementation planning and strategies for community-led integrated programs that support diverse partnerships and promote localized application? Outcomes: The workshop key insights and directions will be summarized in a paper for publication, with the intention of contributing to scholarship on community-based Integrated healthcare models in Indigenous communities. Additionally, the discussions and insights gleaned from the workshop will be summarized and shared in a report presented to a Community Implementation Committee overseeing a community-based integrated healthcare model for Indigenous communities in northern Alberta. The group insights will also inform the refinement of implementation strategies for the community-based integrated healthcare model. The Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) SUPPORT UNIT Learning Health System Team is interested in equity-focused implementation science, and the discussions emerging from the workshop will be of particular interest to them.
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 | 0.064 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".