MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390956907 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic23108

Examining Individualized Participatory Approaches to Care for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

2023· article· en· W4390956907 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Megann Dong, Gillian Young, Brian Dunne, Donnie Antony, Ruth Armstrong, Bridget Ryan, Maria Mathews, Shannon L. Sibbald

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Disease Management Strategies
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésParticipatory action researchKnowledge translationCommunity-based participatory researchQualitative researchHealth careIntegrated careCitizen journalismKnowledge managementNursingParticipatory evaluationPsychologyMedicineMedical educationPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Patient-centred care plans (PCPs) have been identified as a favourable upstream intervention for community-care populations to improve client outcomes, client and provider experiences, and reduce costly and preventable health service utilization; however, there is limited evidence on implemented approaches. Aim: Our study aims to address this gap by exploring individualized participatory approaches to care planning as a means to improving health and social care. We intend to understand the key components and impacts of the approach utilized by a community-care organization including the types, features, and factors that support or hinder the use of participatory approaches for developing PCPs. Methods: Our study utilizes an integrated knowledge translation approach (iKT) and as such involves a collaboration between the knowledge users, PHSS, a provincial community-care organization based out of London, Ontario, Canada, and a Western University research team. Members of PHSS and Western University were involved in all aspects of the research design, starting from developing the research question, creating the interview guide, and recruiting participants. Research team members will be actively involved in the analysis of findings and knowledge dissemination. Using a convergent parallel design, we are conducting a mixed-methods study consisting of two parts: 1) qualitative interviews (n=11) with PHSS staff, and 2) a scoping review. The scoping review will be guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews. Results: The study is currently ongoing. For the qualitative interviews, we anticipate that the organization’s culture (including their mission and values) and implemented practices that allow for flexibility and adaptability, alongside large support from upper management are important factors that support the utilization of PCPs. It is expected that the benefits of PCPs for persons-supported and their families are inclusivity and the opportunity to lead a full and meaningful life. Moreover, it is expected that PCPs provide motivation for staff to plan and implement the preferences and activities outlined in a PCP. For the scoping review, based on a preliminary search we ran on the MEDLINE (OVID) database, we anticipate finding a small body of evidence that is relevant to our aim. We expect that the literature will demonstrate diversity in the definition of PCPs, community-care services, and implemented practices that are considered person-centred, and participatory. As such, we anticipate that the findings from our scoping review will provide a wide range of data in identifying types and features of PCPs. Implications: The outcomes of this research project will be utilized to inform PHSS and support the spread of their participatory, person-centred approach to care. The findings will also encourage professionals of an international audience to implement PCP practices for similar vulnerable populations. Next Steps: We believe that this project will demonstrate the link between PCPs and improved standards of care and health equity for community-care clients. As we anticipate a wide variety in many aspects of PCPs in community-care services, future research can focus on developing a framework for PCPs to standardize the patient-centred practices to improve health and social care for community-care clients.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,539
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,556

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,188
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,157 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated CareMême sujetChronic Disease Management StrategiesTravaux en français237 207