Integrated Services for Frail Elders (SIPA): A Trial of a Model for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex formed by chronic illness, episodes of acute illness, physiological disabilities, functional limitations, and cognitive problems is prevalent among frail elderly persons. These individuals rely on assistance from social and health care programs, which in Canada are still fragmented. SIPA (Services intégrés pour les personnes âgées fragiles) is an integrated service model based on community services, a multidisciplinary team, case management that retains clinical responsibility for all the health and social services required, and the capacity to mobilize resources as required and according to the care protocol. The SIPA demonstration project used an experimental design, with random allocation of the 1,230 participants from two areas of Montreal to an experimental and a control group. The costs of institutional services were $4,270 less for those in the SIPA group compared to the control group; the costs of community care were $3,394 more. The proportion of persons waiting in acute care hospitals for nursing home placement was twice as high in the control group as in the SIPA group. The costs of acute hospitalizations for persons in the SIPA group with ADL disabilities were at least $4,000 lower than those for persons in the control group. In conclusion, the SIPA trial showed that it is possible to undertake ambitious and rigorous demonstration projects in Canada. These results were obtained without an increase in the overall costs of health and social services, without reducing the quality of care, and without increasing the burden on elderly persons and their relatives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".