How do Allied Health Professionals Evaluate New Models of Care? What Are We Measuring and Why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify what outcome measures or quality indicators are being used to evaluate advanced and new roles in nine allied health professions and whether the measures are evaluating outcomes of interest to the patient, the clinician, or the healthcare provider. A systematic search strategy was used. Medical and allied health databases were searched and relevant articles extracted. Relevant studies with at least 1 outcome measure were evaluated. A total of 106 articles were identified that described advanced roles, however, only 23 of these described an outcome measure in sufficient detail to be included for review. The majority of the reported measures fit into the economic and process categories. The most reported outcome related to patients was satisfaction surveys. Measures of patient health outcomes were infrequently reported. It is unclear from the studies evaluated whether new models of allied healthcare can be shown to be as safe and effective as traditional care for a given procedure. Outcome measures chosen to evaluate these services often reflect organizational need and not patient outcomes. Organizations need to ensure that high-quality performance measures are chosen to evaluate the success of new health service innovations. There needs to be a move away from in-house type surveys that add little or no valid evidence as to the effect of a new innovation. More importance needs to be placed on patient outcomes as a measure of the quality of allied health interventions.
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 | 0.257 | 0.546 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".