MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401524806 · doi:10.1111/jep.14129

The CONECT‐6 case‐finding tool to identify patients with complex needs: A few tips to promote understanding

2024· article· en· W4401524806 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Émilie Angrignon‐Girouard, Charlotte Schwarz, Dana Howse, Kris Aubrey, Mathieu Bisson, Maud‐Christine Chouinard, L Dickinson, Shelley Doucet, Marie‐France Dubois, Olivier Dumont‐Samson, Catherine Hudon

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversité de MontréalUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité de Sherbrooke
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineNursingMedical educationPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Patients with complex health and social care needs (hereafter "complex needs") often use services provided by different professionals, calling for integrated care to adequately meet their needs.1 In a previous publication,2 our team presented the COmplex NEeds Case-finding Tool—6 (CONECT-6), a case-finding tool including six yes or no questions, for early identification of people with complex needs who frequently use emergency department services. Even with the most robust psychometric properties, health assessment questionnaires often pose challenges for vulnerable populations, such as a lack of clarity or a lack of specificity to capture the respondents' unique and complex situations.3-6 It is good practice to provide respondents with some advice and guidelines to facilitate the questionnaires' administration and promote their understanding.6 This article aims to propose a few tips to ensure better understanding when administering CONECT-6 to people who frequently use emergency department services to identify if they have complex needs. The ongoing PriCARE Transitions project, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, aims to better understand the experience of care transitions of patients living with complex needs.7 Knowing that people with complex needs frequently use many health and social services and that emergency department visits are a good proxy of this use,8, 9 people with complex care needs were recruited in six emergency departments from three Canadian provinces (Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador). The CONECT-6 tool was administered as a screening tool for complex needs to patients with three or more emergency visits in the previous year. Patients with two positive answers or more were then invited to complete the INTERMED Self-Assessment (IMSA)10 to confirm complex needs. A validation study of the CONECT-6 tool compared its responses against those in the IMSA,10 which is considered a gold standard for measuring complex needs. CONECT-6 validation documented a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 66% with a threshold of two or more positive answers, and a positive predictive value of 49% and a negative predictive value of 95%.2 Thus far, six participating emergency sites in the PriCARE Transitions study have recruited over 700 patients to complete the CONECT-6 screening tool either electronically or on paper. To overcome barriers of low literacy or reading challenges a researcher typically administered the questionnaire,11 but people who indicated that they were more comfortable self-administering the questionnaire could do so. As with many other validated questionnaires, many people raised questions regarding CONECT-6 despite its simple formula and previous validation.6 The most frequent challenges encountered across sites were: (1) for the first, third, and sixth items, people tended to elaborate on their specific situation, leaving the research team to either choose a 'yes' or 'no' option or to rephrase the question to elicit a 'yes' or 'no' response; and (2) the second and fifth items sometimes needed more explanation. The research team, including patient partners, met and shared strategies they used to facilitate respondents' understanding and proposed tips. English-speaking members of the team worked on the English version while French-speaking members worked on the French version. Teamwork and discussions ensured that the questionnaires maintained their original meaning. Here are the proposed tips to administer the CONECT-6 tool in Tables 1 and 2. In general, would you say your health is fair to poor, or would you say your health is better than that? If the patient answers better than that, the answer is no, otherwise, the answer is yes. If the patient asks for it, specify that all sources of income include employment income, benefits, annuities, investments, and scholarships. By household, we mean all the people who live under the same roof. Si le patient le demande, préciser que par toutes sources de revenus on inclut les revenus d'emploi, les prestations, les rentes et les bourses. Par ménage, on entend toutes les personnes qui habitent sous le même toit. This paper proposes tips to promote participant understanding when completing the CONECT-6 questionnaire. This 6-item questionnaire remains a useful case-finding tool to identify people with complex health and social needs in the emergency department for recruitment in research projects or in clinical programs. We thank the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for funding. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,050
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,264

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0500,142
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0060,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0050,010
Science ouverte0,0040,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,008

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 Opus0,458
Tête enseignante GPT0,636
Écart entre enseignants0,178 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207