A country of perpetual pilot projects
Open accessAbstract
When it comes to moving health care practices forward efficiently, Canada is a country of perpetual pilot projects. We seldom move proven projects into stable, funded programs, and we rarely transfer the outcomes of pilot projects across jurisdictions. This approach is not serving our health care
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Healthcare technology innovations frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives.
“Healthcare technology innovations hold considerable promise for enhancing patient outcomes and service efficiency, but they frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives [1–5].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The Abstract says Canada seldom moves proven health-care pilot projects into stable, funded programs and that projects often end when initial funding runs out. This supports the point about initiatives remaining at the pilot stage, but the paper discusses health-care practices and programs generally, not technology innovations specifically, and its account is limited to Canada. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese challenges have caused Canada to gain a reputation as a "land of perpetual pilot projects", where promising solutions fail to gain traction beyond the regional level.
“These challenges have caused Canada to gain a reputation as a “land of perpetual pilot projects”, where promising solutions fail to gain traction beyond the regional level [6].”
From Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 102
- Authors
- Begin, H. M., Eggertson, L., & Macdonald, N.
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Joule Inc.
- Published
- 2009-06-08
- Volume
- 180
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1185-1185
- ISSN
- 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
- 1488-2329
- PMC
- PMC2691427
- OpenAlex
- W2140831772
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Keywords
- pilot project, healthcare innovation, health policy, health care financing, Canada
- MeSH terms
- Canada, Health Services Research, Humans, Pilot Projects, Research Support as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
