MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3217662001 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.17.21266404

Care Models for Long COVID : A Rapid Systematic Review

2021· preprint· en· W3217662001 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Décary, Michèle Dugas, Théo Stefan, Léa Langlois, Becky Skidmore, Anne Bhéreur, Annie LeBlanc, Stephanie Hastings, Branden Manns, Lynora Saxinger

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Établissements canadiensAlberta Health ServicesUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReferralContext (archaeology)MEDLINEMedicineHealth careFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GerontologyNursingDiseaseStatistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Context More than 18M people worldwide (150K Canadians) are living with Long COVID resulting in debilitating sequalae and disabilities that impact their quality of life and capacity to return to work. A new care model is needed for persons living with this complex and multi-systemic disease. Objectives What is the best-available evidence about care models for persons living with Long COVID? Design Rapid Living Systematic Review. Method We systematically searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, COVID-END, L-OVE, CDRS and WHO Ovid) on May 27 th , 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text. We included studies reporting on 1- persons living with Long COVID and 2- proposing a specific care model (i.e., dedicated clinic, care pathway). We extracted characteristic of studies (e.g., countries, study design, age group), referral pathways targeted (e.g., hospitalized, community), reporting of the care model implementation with number of patients, clinical settings of care model (e.g., primary care), healthcare professions included in the care model, care model principles (e.g., person-centred care) and care model components (e.g., standardized symptoms assessment). We used descriptive statistics and frequency count. Results We screened 2181 citations, read 65 full text and included 12 eligible articles reporting on care models for Long COVID. Half studies were from the United Kingdom. 7 out of 12 models reported conceptual models without a description of implementation. All but one model was designed for discharge and long-term follow-up of hospitalized patients and half models were designed for non- hospitalized or patients who lived with the disease only in the community. Nine out of 12 care models included primary care, 8 out of 12 included specialized clinics and all studies included rehabilitation services. A total of 30 healthcare professions and medical specialties were proposed for staffing Long COVID services. More than half studies proposed multidisciplinary teams, integrated/coordination of care, evidence-based care and patient-centred care as key care model principles. Standardized symptom assessment, follow-up system and virtual care were the most frequent care model components. Conclusion The implementation of care models for Long COVID is underway in several countries. Care models need to include both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. A complete care model for this population appears to design a care pathway integrating primary care, rehabilitation services and specialized clinics for medical assessment. The entry into care pathways is likely possible through a centralized referral system. It is possible to design sustainable and equitable care pathways for Long COVID in Canada integrated in current infrastructure. Protocol/Topic Registration CRD42021282266 Summary An estimated 150K Canadians, mostly women, are facing debilitating sequalae and disabilities from Long COVID that impact their quality of life and capacity to return to work. A new care model is needed for persons with this complex and multi-systemic disease. We identified international care models describing the integration of primary care, rehabilitation services and specialized assessment clinics for Long COVID. Implications Limited evidence from this review of international care models for Long COVID point out to a care model for the Canadian context that should be co- designed with patients, clinicians, decision makers and researchers, and include: 1- A coordination unit to centrally receive referrals from both hospitalized and community-based patients; 2- Training of primary care teams to screen and support medical needs; 3- Integrated local multidisciplinary rehabilitation services; and 4- Access to medical specialty clinics for advanced testing and diagnoses. What is the current situation? More than 150K Canadians are with living the affliction of Long COVID, the patient-led term to describe long-term consequences of COVID-19. Long COVID is a multi-systemic and unpredictable disease impacting quality of life and return to work in middle aged population. To avoid widespread long-term disabilities impacting public health, Canadian provinces are seeking to organize a sustainable and equitable care model for Long COVID. What is the objective? To provide the best-available evidence about care models for persons living with Long COVID. How was the review conducted? We systematically searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, COVID-END, L-OVE, CDRS and WHO Ovid) on May 27th, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened title, abstract and full text. We included studies reporting on 1- persons living with Long COVID (post- hospitalized and community based) and 2- a specific care model (i.e., dedicated clinic, care pathway). We extracted characteristic of studies, referral pathways, clinical settings of care model, healthcare professions included in the care models, care model principles, care model components and reporting of the care model implementation. What did the review find? We found 12 international care models for Long COVID that covers follow-up of patients discharged following a hospitalization and patients who had lived the infection in the community. Most reported elements included in these care models were a coordination unit, primary care pathways, access to multidisciplinary rehabilitation and specialized medical services. The impact and costs of these care models are not yet reported.

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)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,870
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · 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.

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

Citations28
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxivMême sujetLong-Term Effects of COVID-19Travaux en français237 207