The effectiveness of the PRISMA integrated service delivery network: preliminary report on methods and baseline data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The PRISMA study analyzes an innovative coordination-type integrated service delivery (ISD) system developed to improve continuity and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of services, especially for older and disabled populations. The objective of the PRISMA study is to evaluate the effectiveness of this system to improve health, empowerment and satisfaction of frail older people, modify their health and social services utilization, without increasing the burden of informal caregivers. The objective of this paper is to present the methodology and give baseline data on the study participants. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study with pre-test, multiple post-tests, and a comparison group was used to evaluate the impact of PRISMA ISD. Elders at risk of functional decline (501 experimental, 419 control) participated in the study. RESULTS: At entry, the two groups were comparable for most variables. Over the first year, when the implementation rate was low (32%), participants from the control group used fewer services than those from the experimental group. After the first year, no significant statistical difference was observed for functional decline and changes in the other outcome variables. CONCLUSION: This first year must be considered a baseline year, showing the situation without significant implementation of PRISMA ISD systems. Results for the following years will have to be examined with consideration of these baseline results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".