MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975867112 · doi:10.1002/art.10665

A randomized comparison of care provided by a clinical nurse specialist, an inpatient team, and a day patient team in rheumatoid arthritis

2002· article· en· W1975867112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerhardus J. Tijhuis, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Johanna M W Hazes, Wilbert B. van den Hout, Ferdinand C. Breedveld, T. P. M. Vliet Vlieland

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleClinical nurse specialistHealth careFamily medicinePatient satisfactionRheumatologyClinical trialRating scaleInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare in a randomized, controlled trial the clinical effectiveness of care delivered by a clinical nurse specialist, inpatient team care, and day patient team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have increasing functional limitations. METHODS: Between December 1996 and January 1999, 210 patients with RA were recruited in the outpatient clinic of the rheumatology department of 6 academic and nonacademic hospitals. Clinical assessments recorded on study entry and weeks 6, 12, 26, and 52 included the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire as primary outcome measures, and the RAND-36 Item Health Survey, the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life questionnaire, the Health Utility Rating Scale, and the Disease Activity Score as secondary outcome measures. Patient satisfaction with care was measured on a visual analog scale in week 6 in all 3 groups and again in week 12 in the nurse specialist group. RESULTS: Within all 3 groups, functional status, quality of life, health utility, and disease activity improved significantly over time (P < 0.05). However, a comparison of clinical outcome among the 3 groups and a comparison between the nurse specialist group and the inpatient and day patient care groups together did not show any sustained significant differences. Subgroup analysis showed that age had a significant impact on differences between the 3 treatment groups with respect to functional outcome as measured with the HAQ (P < 0.001). With increasing age, the most favorable outcome shifted from care provided by a clinical nurse specialist and inpatient care to day patient care. Patients' satisfaction with care was significantly lower in the nurse specialist group than in the inpatient and day patient care groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Care provided by a clinical nurse specialist appears to have a similar clinical outcome in comparison with inpatient and day patient team care. Although all patients were highly satisfied with multidisciplinary care, patients who received care provided by a clinical nurse specialist were slightly less satisfied than those who received inpatient or day patient team care. Age appeared to be the only factor related to differences in functional outcome between the 3 treatment groups. The choice of management strategy may, apart from age, further be dependent on the availability of facilities, the preferences of patients and health care providers, and economic considerations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207