Suchergebnisse

Titre de la couv. ; Reproduction électronique. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Mode d'accès: World Wide Web. ; 44

In double columns. ; Caption title. ; At head of title: Canada. House of Commons Debates. Official Report. ; Electronic reproduction. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 44

This article focuses on multilevel governance applied to health organizations in Québec (Canada). The objective is to understand the action levers that facilitate the adaptation of the services toward migrant populations. This type of population establishes itself as an excellent tracer case to analyze the adaptation process, its fractalization and its involvement with the Environment. The dynamics between the actors and their self-organization takes part in the development of a multilevel governance. Interactions with the Environment—both internal and external—highlight the development of networks that emerge from the field and are then implemented at strategic levels in the organizations. The presence of connectivity actors within the organization and the Environment is established. The context, the bonds of trust between the actors and the credibility of the policymakers are reflected as important factors. However, connectivity actors cannot be successful without the support and contribution of the more "hierarchical" actors. Eight action levers are revealed by the analysis. We categorized them in 3 functions: administrative, enabling, and emerging. The levers of the administrative and emerging functions require that the levers of the enabling function be credible and legitimate and be able to support them for the adaptation to spread throughout the healthcare organization, regardless of the scope or policymaking level. The fractal function facilitates this process, by combining connectivity actors with the implementation of connectivity structures.

This paper analyzes the debates surrounding the privatization of health services financing in Quebec. The objective is to clarify policy-making processes with regard to this important issue and, more generally, to provide a realistic understanding of health-related policy processes in Canada. The analysis is based on a large and continuous sample of mass media and National Assembly debates on the question during the four-and-a-half years following the Chaoulli ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. These data are used to test four hypotheses about relationships among the types of political actors involved, their policy preferences, the rhetoric they use and the anticipated policy effects they assert. The results are applied to a discussion of questions about the factors that influence the effectiveness of political communication.

This paper reports on a research collective on primary healthcare (PHC) conducted in Quebec in 2004. Thirty ongoing or recently completed studies were synthesized through a process involving a high degree of exchange among researchers who conducted the original studies, investigators and decision-makers. The viewpoints expressed by decision-makers who participated in the process were analyzed in terms of convergence with and divergence from the researchers' viewpoints. In four cases, there was convergence between the decision-makers' and the researchers' viewpoints, thus increasing the validity of the collective's findings. The main divergence between the two groups' viewpoints concerns the strategy adopted in Quebec to create local health and social services networks. Such divergence reflects the distinction made by Klein between scientific evidence and organizational and political evidence.

This article presents and discusses five challenges encountered in conducting a knowledge synthesis on primary healthcare, commissioned by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. These challenges are (1) conceptualizing, defining and operationalizing complex interventions; (2) integrating quantitative and qualitative studies and assessing strength of evidence; (3) incorporating expert opinions and decision-makers' viewpoints; (4) producing timely results; and (5) presenting the results in a concise yet understandable form. We also propose methods and operational tools to deal with these issues, particularly regarding integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence and incorporation of expert opinions into syntheses. The major challenge of the synthesis was to provide pertinent and useful information for decision- and policy-makers, while maintaining an acceptable level of scientific rigour. This approach seems promising for knowledge syntheses, which sustain a deliberative process that leads to more enlightened decision and policy-making.