MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404148744 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00183

Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4404148744 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCardiff UniversitySwansea Bay University Health Board
Mots-clésOutcome (game theory)Value (mathematics)Primary careOccupational therapyPsychologyMedicineNursingPhysical therapyFamily medicineComputer scienceMathematicsMachine learning

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care. INTRODUCTION: Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded. METHODS: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care. RESULTS: From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a variety of methods. The aim of reducing the per capita cost of health care was least represented in the literature. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights a multifaceted but inconsistent approach to measuring the outcomes of occupational therapy provided in primary care. This has implications for establishing effectiveness and capturing data at scale to assist with wider planning of care and to enable the profession to demonstrate its contribution to value-based health care. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hnaq4/.

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)0,103
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,286
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,897
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,543

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1030,286
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,009
Bibliométrie0,0350,038
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0120,009
Science ouverte0,0040,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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 Opus0,386
Tête enseignante GPT0,659
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · 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.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
DomaineMéthodes
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchTravaux en français237 207