Search

Background: Managed cancer networks are widely promoted in national cancer control programs as an organizational form that enables integrated care as well as enhanced patient outcomes. While national programs are set by policy-makers, the detailed implementation of networks is delegated at the service delivery and institutional levels. It is likely that the capacity to ensure more integrated cancer services requires multi-level governance processes responsive to the strengths and limitations of the contexts and capable of supporting network-based working. Based on an empirical case, this study aims to analyze the implementation of a mandated cancer network, focusing on governance and health services integration as core concepts in the study.Methods/design: This nested multi-case study uses mixed methods to explore the implementation of a mandated cancer network in Quebec, a province of Canada. The case is the National Cancer Network (NCN) subdivided into three micro-cases, each defined by the geographic territory of a health and social services region. For each region, two local health services centers (LHSCs) are selected based on their differences with respect to determining characteristics. Qualitative data will be collected from various sources using three strategies: review of documents, focus groups, and semi-directed interviews with stakeholders. The qualitative data will be supplemented with a survey that will measure the degree of integration as a proxy for implementation of the NCN. A score will be constructed, and then triangulated with the qualitative data, which will have been subjected to content analysis. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods data will be interpreted within and across cases in order to identify governance patterns similarities and differences and degree of integration in contexts.Discussion: This study is designed to inform decision-making to develop more effective network implementation strategies by thoroughly describing multi-level governance processes of a sample of settings that provide cancer services. Although the study focuses on the implementation of a cancer network in Quebec, the rich descriptions of multiple nested cases will generate data with a degree of generalizability for health-care systems in developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last thirty years, transformations to planning practices in the public sector have been based on a critique of the rationalist paradigm, articulated through progmatic and communicational streams. In the field of public health, a major debate on the place of citizens and communities has arisen from opening up planning practices to participation. In Quebec, three major actions attest to the headway that has been made. These actions also allow us to consider unexplored opportunities for participation as an instrument of democratisation and effectiveness in public planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access., Design: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey., Setting: All 10 Canadian provinces., Participants: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients., Main Outcome Measures: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care., Results: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did., Conclusion: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.