Increasing Understanding of Referrals from Healthcare Professionals to Community-Based Exercise Programs with Healthcare-Community Partnerships Designed for Older Adults with Balance and Mobility Limitations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Referrals from healthcare professionals to community-based exercise programs with healthcare-community partnerships (CBEP-HCPs) are important for program sustainability; however, they are inconsistent. Little is known about referrals to CBEP-HCPs, including the referral sources, promotional strategies used to facilitate referral, and the referral practice of healthcare partners (individuals who support programs by prescribing exercise, training and supporting the instructors, monitoring the program, and facilitating referrals). This thesis is comprised of three studies that aimed to: 1) identify the nature, range, and extent of models which guide the development of linkages between healthcare settings and community programs; 2) describe CBEP-HCP providers’ perceptions of the a) type and work setting of healthcare professionals who refer to CBEP-HCPs by community size; b) nature, frequency, and utility of strategies used to promote referral from healthcare professionals to CBEP-HCPs; and c) facilitators and barriers to CBEP-HCP promotion; and 3) explore how healthcare partners in CBEP-HCPs designed for people with balance and mobility limitations understand and enact referrals in the context of their role. Study 1 was a scoping review of healthcare-community linkage models with six models included. Results showed that models most commonly targeted primary care as the healthcare setting and intended users, while there was a paucity of models designed for ambulatory and rehabilitation settings. Almost all models outlined the linkage strategy of coordinating services and referral processes. Study 2 was an interviewer-administered survey of 23 CBEP-HCP providers of 27 programs. Findings revealed that the majority of programs received referrals from hospital-based physical therapists and the majority of healthcare partners were also physical therapists. Study 3 was a descriptive qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews of 12 healthcare partners in a CBEP-HCP. Findings demonstrated that healthcare partners described their role in referrals as secondary to their roles as educators and trainers. They commented that their role with referrals evolved wherein they provided less support as programs became well-established. Thesis findings advance knowledge about referrals by healthcare professionals to CBEP-HCPs. Future research should explore referrals by healthcare professionals other than physical therapists, identify healthcare partner competencies, develop ambulatory and rehabilitation linkage models, and develop interventions to increase referrals.
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 | 0,042 | 0,130 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».