MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2767013387 · doi:10.5334/ijic.3577

Functional Limitations Experienced by Older Adults with Complex Care Needs and Its Impact on Access to Community Based Health and Social Care

2017· article· en· W2767013387 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Ashlinder Gill, Kerry Kuluski, Allie Peckham, John Parsons, Nicolette Sheridan, Ann McKillop, Jasleen Arneja

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Disease Management Strategies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAging in placeThematic analysisBuilt environmentGerontologyHealth careMedicineIndependent livingSocial isolationNursingPsychologyQualitative researchSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Multimorbidity is often combined with functional limitations among older adults. It is therefore important to ensure the built and social environment encourages older adults to safely age while maintaining independence. Previous findings have focused on the impact of the built environment as a barrier to an active lifestyle, but not specific to accessing community-based health and social care (CHSC). We propose to investigate the impact of patient and caregiver limitations on accessing care, including the impact of the built environment.Methods: Secondary thematic coding analysis was undertaken with 53 patient and 38 informal caregiver interviews from communities in Canada and New Zealand. Reported findings are from a broader research program titled, Implementing integrated Care for Older Adults with Complex Health needs (iCOACH). Older complex seniors were recruited for participation from a community primary healthcare team if they were greater than 50 years of age, and managing ongoing chronic conditions. Caregivers were unpaid informal carers of older adults. A specific thematic code about unmet need was extensively reviewed for examples related to the built environment and access to care.Results: Functional limitations hindered self-management at home as well as accessing CHSC. Attributes of the physical environment at home impacted the use of assistive devices, and impaired the ability to leave the home. Physical barriers within the social environment included the inability to use public transportation, access community programs, and conduct daily living tasks. Consequences from not being able to access supports included greater financial strain, social isolation, poor safety at home, lack of independence, and greater caregiver strain. Older adults appeared to be less impacted by access barriers when living in supportive housing settings, where on-site staff were available to provide direct support, or initiate referrals for additional services.Discussions: Experiences of older adults and informal caregivers highlighted access to care issues specific to the immediate and external physical environment, and examples of when support was efficiently provided. When considering how to best deliver services to people with complex care needs and their caregivers, it is important to consider how those services can be accessed.Conclusions: When services cannot be easily accessed, patients and caregivers may make critical trade-offs. To maintain independence and safety, it is important to design services which consider the adaptations and supports that are required to support older adults both at home, as well as the environment they have to navigate to access care.Lessons learned: CHSC should be delivered to ensure increased accessibility. Providing health services which are close in proximity to primary care providers, or co-locating may be more efficient and accessible. Community programs should consider the broad range of limitations in designing holistic services for older adults and their caregivers.Limitations: Transferability of findings may be limited, as rural community-dwelling seniors and participants with cognitive decline were not included in the study. Suggestions for future research: Further explore the barriers to improving access to medical and social care from policy and provider perspectives, and create solutions that can be explored and implemented.

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)0,000
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: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,178
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,567

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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 ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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 sujetChronic Disease Management StrategiesTravaux en français237 207