Community-Integrated Intermediary Care (CIIC) Service Model to Enhance Family-Based, Long-Term Care for Older People: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Thailand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Thailand is one of the most rapidly aging countries in Asia. Traditional family-based care, which has been the basis of most care for older people, is becoming unsustainable as families become smaller. In addition, women tend to be adversely affected as they still form the bulk of caregivers for older people, and many are likely to exit the labor market in order to provide care. Many family caregivers also have no or minimal training, and they may be called upon to provide quite complex care, increasing the proportion of older people receiving suboptimal care if they rely only on informal care that is provided by families and friends. Facing the increasing burden of noncommunicable diseases and age-related morbidity, Thai communities are increasingly in need of community-integrated care models for older persons that can link existing health systems and reduce the burden upon caring families. This need is common to many countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of a community-integrated intermediary care (CIIC) model to enhance family-based care for older people. METHODS: This paper describes a cluster randomized controlled trial comprised of 6 intervention clusters and 6 control clusters that aim to recruit 2000 participants in each arm. This research protocol has been approved by the World Health Organization Ethics Review Committee. The intervention clusters will receive an integrated model of care structured around (1) a community respite service, (2) the strengthening of family care capacity, and (3) an exercise program that aims to prevent entry into long-term care for older people. Control group clusters receive usual care (ie, the current system of long-term care common to all provinces in Thailand), consisting principally of a volunteer-assisted home care service. The trial will be conducted over a period of 2 years. The primary outcome is family caregiver burden measured at a 6-month follow-up, as measured by the Caregiver Burden Inventory. Secondary outcomes consist of biopsychosocial indicators including functional ability, as measured using an activity of daily living scale; depression, as measured by the Geriatric Depression Scale; and quality of life of older people, as measured by the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels scale. Intention-to-treat analysis will be followed. RESULTS: The CIIC facility has been established. Community care prevention programs have been launched at the intervention clusters. Family caregivers are receiving training and assistance. However, the COVID-19 pandemic delayed the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Since ASEAN and many Asian countries share similar traditional family-based, long-term care systems, the proposed CIIC model and the protocol for its implementation and evaluation may benefit other countries wishing to adopt similar community-integrated care models for older people at risk of needing long-term care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20190412004; http://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20196.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».