Case management for acquired brain injury: A systematic review of the evidence base.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Brain Injury Case management involves coordinating and organising services and systems around brain injured clients and their families. Case managers may come from diverse professional backgrounds but have expert understanding of the unique and often complex needs of people with acquired brain injury. In what is the largest review on this topic to date, we sought to explore the international evidence base in relation to case managers and acquired brain injury. Methods Searches were conducted with seven databases, using a search strategy based on key terms relating to “case management” and “brain injury”. Eligible studies included peer reviewed publications, with books and magazine pieces excluded. All studies were screened and independently extracted by two reviewers. The quality of empirical studies was assessed by the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT), with the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists used for systematic reviews and text and opinion studies. Given the diversity of the evidence reviewed, findings were presented narratively. Results Electronic searches identified 2,062 studies, of which 35 were deemed eligible to be included in this review. Of these, 3 were reviews, 12 were opinion pieces, and 20 were empirical research studies. The majority came from the USA (n = 15) and the UK (n = 10), with other studies originating from Australia (n = 8) and Canada (n = 2). Narrative synthesis of included studies highlighted the challenges of measuring and evaluating the impact of case management for brain injury, vital aspects of case management, such as good communication and relationships with clients, supporting the wider family, and expertise relating to brain injury. Findings also indicated that case managers must work across the continuum of care, working with their clients’ long term, possibly across acute, to post-acute and into community services. Conclusions The relative infancy of the case management profession creates certain challenges, however it also provides an ideal opportunity to shape its future in a way that is beneficial for the client, family and healthcare providers. Case managers have already made significant developments to the profession since its conception, however, future progression requires collaboration between academics, clinicians and case managers, to produce better outcomes for clients and their families.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,127 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».