MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3034009847 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00200

Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and interprofessional, team-based primary health care: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3034009847 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Bobbette, Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz, Joan Tranmer, Rosemary Lysaght, Lee‐Anne Ufholz, Catherine Donnelly

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyPrimary careIntellectual disabilityGerontologyMedical educationNursingMedicineFamily medicinePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to examine the state of the evidence for interprofessional, team-based primary health care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. INTRODUCTION: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities are a complex, vulnerable population known to experience health inequities. Interprofessional primary health care teams are recommended to improve access to comprehensive and coordinated health care for these individuals. Limited information is available regarding what services interprofessional primary health care teams provide and how services are evaluated specific to the care of this population. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered all studies that referenced individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities who were 18 years or older. It considered all studies that referred to health care provision within a primary health care context. All studies that discussed the provision of interprofessional primary health care services were included. "Interprofessional primary health care team" was the term used to describe services provided by health providers (e.g. physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, dietitians, social workers, mental health workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists) working in a team-based model of care. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs were considered for inclusion. In addition, systematic reviews, program descriptions, clinical reviews, and opinion papers were considered. Studies published in English and French were included. The period considered was from 2000 to the date of the searches (July and August 2018 for bibliographic databases and January 2019 for the final searches of unpublished studies and selected papers from key authors). RESULTS: The search identified 2761 records. Despite the global search strategy, only 20 records were included in the final review, mainly consisting of work based in the United States and Canada. Results were heterogeneous and descriptive in nature, consisting of cross-sectional designs, program descriptions, and clinical reviews. The findings represent only a few distinct interprofessional primary health care team models of care and multiple contributions from a small pool of researchers. Roles for physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, and mental health providers were identified. Ten studies identified either patient-reported outcomes or health-utilization outcomes. Overall, there was no consistent reporting of outcomes across studies, and outcomes specifically related to many interprofessional services were not captured. Although interprofessional, team-based approaches are supported at a policy and practice level, the concept of interprofessional primary health care for this population remains understudied and is challenged by differences in primary health care provision across the world, complexity in how the field is defined, as well as a lack of consistent reporting of the organizational attributes and processes that support interprofessional primary health care provision. CONCLUSIONS: To fully realize the potential of interprofessional primary health care teams, health services research is needed to describe organizational attributes and processes, and evaluate interventions for this population. Engaging in this work will ultimately provide a more fulsome evidence base to support high-quality, interprofessional primary health care provision for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,072

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,051
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,005
Bibliométrie0,0190,020
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,395
Écart entre enseignants0,340 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations21
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchTravaux en français237 207