Utilizing a family sciences approach to inform integrated care research, practice, and policy.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This interactive workshop describes and makes a case for using a family sciences approach to inform integrated care research, practice, and policy improvements, particularly when integrated care for adult populations is the aim. Adults in need of healthcare are part of unique family systems, and these family systems interact with integrated care systems. For example, when older adults experience declines in health, family members are intricately involved in making care decisions and providing many types of support that interact with care systems. When integrated care is challenged by disconnection or the lack of communication and/or coordination between providers and patients and their families, a family sciences approach to research, practice, and policy improvements can create new knowledge and useful family-based interventions to improve integrated care outcomes for adult populations. This workshop will engage researchers, care providers, and policy makers in understanding the role of family sciences in integrated care research, practice, and policy. This workshop will consist of the following: 1)An introduction to family sciences will set the stage by teaching about the principles of family sciences and highlighting the main theories used by family scientists when considering improvements to integrated care for adult populations. 2)A family sciences approach will be applied to integrated care research and practice. a)We will consider how, when, and why family sciences could be applied to integrated care research focused on adult populations. We will use examples of family-based methods for research that are appropriate for studying adult populations and intergenerational families (e.g., genograms, ecomaps, dyadic interviewing); the benefits and potential pitfalls of these methods will be discussed. An interactive activity will be used when small groups closely examine a selection of family-based methods. A discussion about the applicability of these research methods in group members’ fields of study will be included. b)We will consider the application of family sciences to integrated care practice and policy. We will examine how, when, and why a family sciences lens could be used to improve integrated care practice and policy. Examples of family focused interventions will be presented, and the benefits and potential pitfalls of these interventions will be discussed. An interactive jigsaw activity will have small groups each examine a unique family-based intervention and discuss the benefits/challenges to implementation, including how the intervention might interact with policy. Groups will summarize the intervention and present their findings to each other so the whole workshop groups is exposed to each family-based intervention. 3)We will conclude by considering the future of combining family sciences and integrated care. Participants will list their three main doubts in combining family science approaches and integrated care. They will also list one concrete action they could take in their own research, practice, or policy-setting role that aligns a family sciences approach to integrated 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.
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 | 0,136 | 0,087 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,021 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,019 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
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 ».