Typologie organisationnelle des équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires au Québec et leur relation avec les caractéristiques populationnelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional primary health care teams are groups of health care professionals who bring together different expertise to provide high quality care to patients in a coordinated, integrated, seamless and accessible manner. Interprofessional primary health care teams operationalize the main model of care organization currently being implemented in Quebec. Although this model of care is conceptualized as homogeneous in terms of organizational structure, the underlying characteristics of this structure can vary considerably. Little is known about the nature and extent of this variability and its relationship to the characteristics of the populations that interprofessional teams serve. Objective: This cross-sectional study aims to develop a typology of interprofessional primary health care teams, first by describing the different organizational profiles of these teams, and then by examining the association between the characteristics of the populations served and the organizational profiles. Methods: A mixture model analysis was performed to describe the different organizational profiles among the 368 interprofessional primary health care teams in Quebec. Administrative data from the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux were used and the following organizational characteristics were considered: numbers of full-time equivalent nurse practitioners, regular nurses, social workers, and other health professionals, number of physicians, type of institution (network, academic, regular), sector (private, public, mixed), presence of a pharmacist, number of patients enrolled, attendance rate, and partnership with another health institution. The optimal number of profiles was determined by the Akaike and Bayesian information criterion and by clinical significance. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between the characteristics of the populations served and the organizational profiles. Variables assessed in the model were rurality and proportions of vulnerable patients, pregnant women, patients identified as disadvantaged, those receiving home support, and those living in a long-term care facility and a measure of rurality. Results: The analysis revealed that interprofessional primary care teams were heterogeneous in terms of their organizational structure and could be classified into five distinct profiles that varied in size, composition, and focus of the team, area, and degree of partnership with other health care facilities. The five profiles were ‘Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team’ (n=99; 26.9%); ‘Small, private, regular, moderately partnered, balanced team’ (n=101; 27.5%); ‘Medium, public, academically- oriented, moderately partnered, practitioner-oriented’ (n=58; 15.8%); ‘Large, private, regular, very low partnered, balanced team’ (n=50; 13.6%); and ‘Very large, private, mixed, very low partnered, balanced team’ team (n=60; 16.3%). In addition, pregnant women (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98-3.91), disadvantaged patients ([OR] = 1.62, [CI] 1.15-2.28), those receiving home care ([OR] = 1.85, [CI] 1.28-2, 66) were more likely to be served by teams in the ‘Medium, public, academically- oriented, moderately partnered, practitioner-oriented’ profile than by a team in the ‘Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team’ profile. A significant association was found between the level of rurality and the size of the interprofessional primary care team ([OR] = 0.69, [CI] 1.74-3.80). Rural patients were less likely to be served by teams from the "Medium, public, academically oriented, low partnership, practitioner-oriented team" profile ([OR] = 0.66, [CI] 0.50-0.86) and by one of the "Very large, private, mixed, very low partnership, balanced team" profile teams ([OR] = 0.69, [CI] 0.53-0.90) , than by teams from the "Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team" profile. There was no statistically significant association between patients living in long-term care facilities and organizational profiles. Conclusion: This study uncovered a complex organizational typology of interprofessional primary care teams currently implemented in Quebec. These findings may inform the development of health practices and policies to optimize the structure of interprofessional primary care teams to better meet the specific needs of their populations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".