MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7007633576

Accountability in the Home and Community Care Sector in Ontario

2013· dissertation· en· W7007633576 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)Health careService delivery frameworkLocal governmentPublic sectorHuman servicesBest practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research seeks to identify what accountability frameworks were in place for the home and community care sector in the Canadian province of Ontario, how home and community care agencies in Ontario responded to accountability demands attached to government service funding (specifically through Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) contracts and Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) Multi-Service Accountability Agreements (MSAAs) and what, if any, effect accountability frameworks had on service delivery. \nThis study uses a multi-phase parallel mixed methods approach. First, an environmental scan and document analysis was conducted to identify accountability frameworks and identify key characteristics of accountability demands. Next, 114 home and community care agencies in Ontario were surveyed and 20 key informant interviews were conducted with executives from 13 home and community care agencies, two CCACs and two LHINs. Data from these different methods were combined in the analysis phase.\nHome and community care agencies face multiple accountability requirements from a variety of stakeholders. We found that government agencies relied most heavily on regulatory and expenditure policy instruments to hold home and community care organizations to account. Organizational size and financial dependence were significantly related to organizational compliance to accountability demands attached to CCAC contracts and MSAAs. In addition to the theorized potential organizational responses to external demands (compliance, compromise, avoidance and defiance), this study found that organizations engaged in internal modification where internal practices are changed to meet accountability requirements. Smaller, more poorly resourced organizations that were highly dependent on LHINs or CCACs were more likely to internally modify organizational practice to meet accountability demands. Although MSAAs and CCAC contracts supported a quality culture amongst organizations, internal organizational changes, such as redirecting time towards reporting requirements and away from care, and cutting innovative practices and programs, were reported to have a negative impact on the quality of service delivery. \nGovernment reliance on contract-based accountability for funded home and community care services, while politically advantageous, has the potential to seriously and negatively affect the quality of home and community services delivered. Policy makers need to carefully consider the potential impact on quality of service delivery when developing and implementing accountability policy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207