Using a Rapid Learning Health System for Stratified Care in Emerging Adult Mental Health Services: Protocol for the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mental illness among emerging adults is often difficult to ameliorate due to fluctuating symptoms and heterogeneity. Recently, innovative approaches have been developed to improve mental health care for emerging adults, including (1) implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess illness severity and inform stratified care to assign emerging adults to a treatment modality commensurate with their level of impairment and (2) implementing a rapid learning health system in which data are continuously collected and analyzed to generate new insights, which are then translated to clinical practice, including collaboration among clients, health care providers, and researchers to co-design and coevaluate assessment and treatment strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a rapid learning health system to enable a measurement-based, stratified care treatment strategy for emerging adults. METHODS: This study takes place at a specialty clinic serving emerging adults (age 16-24 years) in Calgary, Canada, and involves extensive collaboration among researchers, providers, and youth. The study design includes six phases: (1) developing a transdiagnostic platform for PROMs, (2) designing an initial stratified care model, (3) combining the implementation of PROMs with stratified care, (4) evaluating outcomes and disseminating results, (5) modification of stratified care based on data derived from PROMs, and (6) spread and scale to new sites. Qualitative and quantitative feedback will be collected from health care providers and youth throughout the implementation process. These data will be analyzed at regular intervals and used to modify the way future services are delivered. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework is used to organize and evaluate implementation according to 3 key objectives: improving treatment selection, reducing average wait time and treatment duration, and increasing the value of services. RESULTS: This project was funded through a program grant running from 2021 to 2026. Ethics approval for this study was received in February 2023. Presently, we have developed a system of PROMs and organized clinical services into strata of care. We will soon begin using PROMs to assign clients to a stratum of care and using feedback from youth and clinicians to understand how to improve experiences and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study has key implications for researchers and clinicians looking to understand how to customize emerging adult mental health services to improve the quality of care and satisfaction with care. This study has significant implications for mental health care systems as part of a movement toward value-based health care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51667.
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 | 0,076 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,045 | 0,011 |
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 ».