MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070732666

An Organizational Case Study of Mental Models among Health System Leaders during Early-Stage Implementation of a Population Health Approach

2024· article· en· W7070732666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationMental healthHealth carePopulationPopulation healthPublic healthExcellenceHealth promotion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Braeden A Terpou,1 Marissa Bird,1,2 Diya Srinivasan,1 Shalu Bains,3 Laura C Rosella,1,4 Laura Desveaux1,2 1Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 2Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Mississauga Hospital, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 4Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Laura Desveaux, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, 2085 Hurontario Street, Mississauga, ON, L5B 1B8, Canada, Tel +1 437772-6836, Email Laura.Desveaux@thp.caPurpose: As the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, the importance of population health has come into sharp focus, prompting many health systems to explore leveraging population health data (PHD) for operational planning. This approach requires that healthcare leaders embrace the dual priorities of maintaining excellence in patient care while promoting the overall health of populations. However, many leaders are new to population-based thinking, posing a threat to successful operationalization if mental models are not aligned.Patients and Methods: This qualitative case study explored the alignment of mental models among 13 senior leaders at Trillium Health Partners (THP), one of Canada’s largest community hospitals, as they embark on embedding PHD within operational workflows.Results: All leaders recognized the necessity of adopting a population health approach amid resource constraints and growing pressures. When discussing the operationalization of PHD, two distinct mental models emerged among leaders: one focused on patient care and the other on population health. While executive leaders demonstrated a fluidity in their thinking between the two, programmatic leaders favoured one over the other. For example, some viewed the organization’s focus on PHD as competing with their patient care responsibilities, while others saw the use of PHD as a solution to the organization’s operational pressures. Despite these divergences, leaders unanimously stressed the importance of increasing the organization’s risk tolerance and devolving decision-making as a necessary precursor to realizing the transformation to a PHD-driven approach.Conclusion: These divergent mental models highlight a need to clarify the shared vision for the use of PHD along with its impact on leadership roles and accountabilities. These findings illustrate the current state from which THP aims to evolve and underscore the importance of aligning leaders’ mental models as a critical step to facilitating successful integration of PHD and advancing a collective vision for healthcare transformation.Keywords: health equity, population health management, healthcare leaders, qualitative study

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.752
GPT teacher head0.744
Teacher spread0.007 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207