Summative evaluation of the Rural Surgical Obstetrical Networks Initiative: Findings from a five year retrospective qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Network (RSON) initiative was originally funded for five years to support, enhance, and sustain rural surgical and obstetrical services in British Columbia (Canada). Interviews and focus groups with healthcare providers and administrators from 10 rural communities were conducted annually, to document the implementation of RSON, understand challenges and gains, and to inform network improvements. To supplement this information and enable participants to reflect on the project’s full duration, we conducted a summative evaluation of RSON to understand the extent to which the program achieved its objectives. Methods Data were collected in two phases: annual interviews and focus groups with rural healthcare providers and administrators in the final project year and through a real-time interactive, anonymous platform, ThoughtExchange, in the context of a day-long, annual virtual meeting. Data from both sources were analysed using a process of thematic analysis. Findings Across both data sources, common themes highlighted the benefits of RSON, including the stabilization of local procedural care through increased local scope and volume, support for clinical coaching and other ongoing educational initiatives, quality improvement efforts, team-oriented care, increased administrative support, and appropriate staffing levels. Themes unique to the summative interviews included those addressing the limitations of RSON funding, particularly constraints on funding and contextual factors limiting participation. Conclusion Findings underscore the importance of a wrap-around approach to health service interventions to reflect the complexity of healthcare delivery and the importance of coordinated, context sensitive efforts that work in synergy with other initiatives. The RSON initiative precipitated a cultural change in key determinants of stability at individual site levels, a necessary precursor to long-lasting change. The combination of this retrospective assessment of RSON and the program evaluation findings suggest the need for long-term funding to support rural surgical and obstetrical services.
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 | 0.059 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".