Patient Navigator Intervention to Improve Palliative Care Outcomes for Hispanic Patients With Serious Noncancer Illness
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Disparities persist across the trajectory of serious illness, including at the end of life. Patient navigation has been shown to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for underserved populations. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a lay patient navigator intervention, Apoyo con Cariño, in improving palliative care outcomes among Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter randomized clinical trial that took place across academic, nonprofit, safety-net, and community health care systems in urban, rural, and mountain/frontier regions of Colorado from January 2017 to January 2021. Self-identifying Hispanic adults with serious noncancer medical illness and limited prognosis were recruited. Data were collected and analyzed from July 2022 to July 2023. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group received 5 home visits from a bilingual, bicultural lay patient navigator; participants randomized to control received care as usual. Both groups received culturally tailored educational materials. Investigators/outcome accessors remained blinded to participant assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in score from baseline to 3 months on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) General quality of life (QOL) scale (primary outcome), Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and FACIT Spiritual Well-Being subscale; at 6 months, advance directive (AD) documentation; and at 46 months or death, hospice utilization and length of stay, as well as aggressiveness of care at end of life. Results: Of 209 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.3] years; 108 [51.7%] male), 105 patients were randomized to control and 104 patients to the intervention. There were no statistically significant differences in the change in mean (SD) QOL score between the intervention and control groups (5.0 [16.5] vs 4.3 [15.5]; P = .75). Participants in the intervention group, compared with the control group, had statistically significant greater increases in mean (SD) ACP engagement (0.8 [1.3] vs 0.1 [1.4]; P < .001) and were more likely to have a documented AD (62 of 104 [59.6%] vs 28 of 105 [26.9%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean (SD) change in pain intensity score (0-10) between patients in the intervention group compared with control (-0.4 [2.6] vs -0.5 [2.8]; P = .79), nor pain interference (-0.2 [3.7] vs -0.4 [3.7]; P = .71). Patients receiving the intervention were more likely to be referred to hospice compared with patients receiving control (19 of 43 patients [44.2%] vs 7 of 33 patients [21.2%]; P = .04) and less likely to receive aggressive care at end of life (27 of 42 patients [64.3%] vs 28 of 33 patients [84.8%]; P = .046). Conclusion and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a culturally tailored patient navigator intervention did not improve QOL for patients. However, the intervention did increase ACP engagement, AD documentation, and hospice utilization in Hispanic persons with serious medical illness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181750.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».