MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2734904481 · doi:10.5334/ijic.3251

The Unmet Needs of Patients and Carers within Community Based Primary Health Care

2017· article· en· W2734904481 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Kerry Kuluski, Ashlinder Gill, Ann McKillop, John Parsons, Allie Peckham, Nicolette Sheridan, Ross Upshur, Cecilia Wong-Cornall

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrimary careNursingMedicinePrimary health careIntegrated careFamily medicineHealth carePopulationEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Community Based Primary Health Care (CBPHC) is positioned as the foundation of integrated health systems, intended to support broader goals of population health and health system sustainability. CBPHC moves beyond traditional primary care (a physician visit) to team based care that spans organizational boundaries (such as primary care clinics + community care services). At the core of CBPHC are patients and their informal carers (family and friends) who can inform ongoing reforms in this sector by sharing their experience, particularly in areas that require improvement. The objective of this paper is to share the unmet needs of patients and caregivers within CBPHC.Methods: This study is part of a broader programme of research called, implementing integrated care for older adults with complex health needs (iCOACH). Semi-structured interviews are being conducted with older patients with complex care needs and with unpaid, informal carers across multiple CBPHC sites in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and New Zealand. Interviews captured the roles, characteristics and needs of patients and carers, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were reviewed by multiple team members and a consensus codebook was created. The code “unmet need” was extracted from the patient and carer transcripts, and analyzed for core themes using an inductive approach.Results: Unmet needs culminated into three broad themes across patient and carer interviews: Accessing Care; Quality of Care; and Missing Care. Many patients accessed care within CBPHC, but the model itself tended to be spread across multiple settings and providers. Patients and carers also required access to services that were outside the CBPHC model. Challenges arose due to lack of transportation, out-of-pocket expenses, limited availability of assistive devices to support mobility, and long wait times. Quality of care and relationships were compromised if there was a language barrier, and when services were misaligned with the preferences of patients and carers. Components of care were often missing, such as respite care for carers, supports for instrumental activities of daily living (e.g., home maintenance and transportation), and supports to reduce social isolation.Conclusions: Due to the complex health and social needs of patients and carers, they often require access to multiple services and providers who are seldom situated under the same roof . Finding ways to integrate across organizational boundaries may reduce areas of unmet need. Furthermore greater attention to the social determinants of health within CBPHC may create a more holistic experience for patients and carers.Lessons Learned: CBPHC is intended to deliver holistic integrated care but when situated within a fragmented health care system, challenges for patients and carers persist.Limitations: Further comparisons need to be made between the unmet needs between patients and caregivers in Canada and New Zealand.Suggestions for future research: Next steps will include the development of a framework that describes the policy and organizational context, and provider configurations in each of the study jurisdictions. How these factors relate to different patient and carer needs and experiences, including areas of unmet need, will be explored to inform the development of person centered CBPHC models.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,415
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated CareMême sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207