Quality of osteoarthritis care for community‐dwelling older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the quality of osteoarthritis care provided to community-dwelling elderly patients and to characterize arthritis-related function in these patients. METHODS: Two medical groups in the western United States participated in a practice-redesign intervention targeted at falls and mobility disorders, incontinence, and cognitive impairment, but not osteoarthritis. From 339 individuals reporting a diagnosis of arthritis, we collected information on demographics, functional status, and quality of care via patient interviews and mailed questionnaires. Eight quality indicators measured osteoarthritis care: 4 indicators measuring the provision of effective osteoarthritis care (osteoarthritis treatment indicators) and 4 measuring the provision of safe osteoarthritis care (medication safety indicators). RESULTS: The mean +/- SD Short Form 12 physical component summary score was 35 +/- 11 points, indicating a physically frail population. The overall indicator pass rate was 57.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 53.9-60.2). Pass rates were higher for indicators of osteoarthritis treatment (63.5%, 95% CI 59.8-67.2) than for indicators of medication safety (43.8%, 95% CI 38.2-49.4). Patients with hip or knee pain had mean +/- SD Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and function scores of 6.0 +/- 4.0, 3.1 +/- 1.7, and 25 +/- 12 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Quality of osteoarthritis care for older adults is suboptimal, particularly with regard to medication safety. Given the high prevalence of osteoarthritis in older age groups, the population impact of any improvement in quality would be substantial. Quality improvement efforts for osteoarthritis should target appropriate use of and counseling regarding medications, as well as underuse of efficacious therapy for osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".