Comparison of the International Health Care Systems Through the Consideration of Population Health and Performance Indicators in Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A health care system is an organised plan of health services that manage health care to a specified society. Health care system involves a network of organisations, governance, facilities, and health care providers. A successful health care system requires qualified services to all populations whenever and wherever they need. Objective: This article has two main purposes. 1) To ascertain the management of health care system in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and 2) to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Method: The comparison study is based on the electronic databases such as Scopus, Web of Sciences, PubMed, ProQuest and SAGE. The study was used databases published between 2015-2019, and using OECD and World Bank health data. Results: The Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have similar health care services and pharmaceutical expenses. Although all the similarity in health care services are easy access and comprehensive, the additional purchase of insurance is still required in each country. Conclusion: This study concluded that the Universal Health Coverage is politically achievable and fiscally feasible by considering the depth and scope of its coverage. After comparing the results of the accessibility and quality of health services in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the data suggested that the health care systems of these countries are relatively adequate.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".