Virtual primary care for people living with dementia in Canada: cross-sectional surveys of patients, care partners, and family physicians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) for dementia in primary care settings is an important aspect of healthcare delivery in Canada. However, the evidence informing optimal and sustainable provision of VC for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners is scarce. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the frequency of VC use, (2) identify characteristics of PLWD, care partners, and family physicians (FPs) that are associated with the use of VC, and (3) explore FPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to provide VC for PLWD and their care partners. METHODS: The Alzheimer Society of Canada and College of Family Physicians of Canada conducted three nationwide cross-sectional surveys between October 2020 and April 2021: (1) One with PLWD, (2) one with care partners of PLWD, and (3) one with FPs. Virtual care was defined as two-way synchronous communication by telephone and/or a web camera. The prevalence of VC use among FPs, PLWD, and care partners was described. Logistic regression models were used to determine characteristics of participants (sociodemographic, urbanicity, frequency and availability of support for connecting with FPs, and FPs' practice characteristics) associated with any VC use (phone and/or video). Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended questions explored FPs' perceptions. RESULTS: 131 PLWD, 341 care partners, and 125 FPs participated. 61.2% of PLWD, 59.5% of care partners, and 77.4% of FPs reported using VC. The models for PLWD (included age and ethnicity) and care partners (included gender/sex, urbanicity, and receiving support from a family member/friend to connect with FP) were inconclusive. FPs with > 20 years in practice were less likely to provide VC (OR = 0.23, 95%CI: 0.08-0.62, p < 0.01). FPs perceived that preferences regarding virtual vs. in-person care, office/family support, technology and family presence, and remuneration for FPs influenced VC use. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual primary dementia care uptake in Canada is substantial and mainly performed via telephone. According to FPs, physician-patient-caregiver partnerships and infrastructure for VC play key roles in using VC. Virtual care could facilitate access to primary care and minimize potential disruptions to in-person care for PLWD. Outcomes of virtual primary care for dementia need further investigation.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».