MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7153320621 · doi:10.18055/finis41316

Health decentralisation

2025· article· en· W7153320621 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rafaela da Mata Oliveira, Gonçalo Santinha, Julian Perelman, Teresa Sá Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueRevistas SARC · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecentralizationLocal governmentPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Per capitaGovernment (linguistics)PortugueseCentral government

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decentralisation of health competences in Portugal was launched with the aim of bringing decision-making closer to local realities and strengthening municipalities’ role in promoting population well-being. A regulatory framework introduced between 2018-2019 enabled the transfer of specific responsibilities from central government to local governments. However, by 2022, only around a quarter of eligible municipalities had accepted these competences, highlighting the existence of structural, political, and financial barriers to reform. While the effects of decentralisation on health system have been widely studied, there remains limited empirical evidence on the factors that influence local jurisdictions’ willingness to assume new responsibilities. Addressing this gap, the present study analyses 201 eligible Portuguese mainland municipalities over the 2020-2022 period, modelling acceptance decisions based on demographic, political, financial, and health-related variables through binary logistic regression. Findings reveal that acceptance was more likely in municipalities politically aligned with the central government, with greater per capita financial resources, and with younger population profiles. In addition, regional dynamics emerged as an important contextual factor. These results highlight the need for decentralisation processes to account for territorial diversity, funding adequacy, and local capacity-building in order to ensure equitable and effective implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.482 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevistas SARCSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207