Tools to Regularly Measure Function for Adult Patients in Primary Care
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Context:</h3> Canada is investing in initiatives to improve primary care. To measure their impact, performance measurement systems require a comprehensive set of health indicators. To date, most primary care health indicators measure process of care, disease, and health service utilization, with a gap in measures of health outcomes. Function is a measure of patient health that could measure outcomes. Regularly measuring function in primary care has had limited success. For primary care teams to implement and use measures of function, they need to be appropriate (i.e. timely, meaningful and credible) and to be feasible in primary care. <h3>Objectives:</h3> To identify the most appropriate and feasible measures of function, for adult patients, that can be used as health indicator(s) in primary care. <h3>Design:</h3> Classic Delphi <h3>Setting:</h3> Primary care in Canada <h3>Population Studied: Expert panel:</h3> 12 Canadian academic leaders, with expertise/experience in team-based care, primary care, patient function, and/or performance measurement. <h3>Intervention:</h3> Rounds 1-3 identified potential measures of function and sought consensus on a finite set of (4-5) measures. Round 4 measured levels of agreement on the appropriateness and feasibility of using 5 patient-reported health measures (SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, WHODAS 2.0, and WHOQOL BREF) to measure function in primary care. <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> Round 1-3: Percent of respondents that would keep, modify, or remove a proposed measure with consensus set at 75%. Round 4: The percent of respondents that rated, on a 5-point Likert scale, the appropriateness and utility of the 5 measures, and the percent of respondents who ranked the measures from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). <h3>Results:</h3> Round 1-3: 41 potential measures were identified representing the 3 ICF domains. Consensus was reached to remove 13 measures with no consensus achieved for the remaining 28. Round 4: Measures rated the highest for appropriateness were the SF-12 (80%) and the SF-36 (70%). Measures rated the highest for feasibility were the SF-12 (100%) and the EQ-5D-5L (90%). Measures with the highest overall rankings were the SF-12 (90%) and the EQ-5D-5L (60%). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Measuring function is complex with all domains of function deemed important to measure. All 5 patient-reported health measures were deemed at least slightly appropriate and feasible. The SF- 12 was shown to be the most appropriate and feasible measure of function that could be used as a health indicator in primary care.
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.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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 découle