The Role of Preference on Outcomes of People Receiving Evidence-Informed Community Wound Care in Their Home or in a Nurse-Clinic Setting: A Cohort Study (n = 230)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study followed a cohort of community-dwelling individuals receiving wound-care in a large urban-rural region. During a randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating outcomes of receiving care in a nurse-clinic or at home, many approached were willing to participate if they could choose their location of care. This provided a unique opportunity to enroll them as a "choice" cohort, following them in the same manner as the trial participants but allowing them to select their setting of care. The objective was to investigate the role of preference and location of care on care outcomes, including satisfaction with care, healing, health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, and resource use. This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of 126 individuals enrolled in an RCT to receive care at home or in a nurse-clinic (Allocated group), and an additional 104 who received care at home or in a nurse-clinic based on their preference (Choice group). Mobile individuals with a leg ulcer of venous or mixed venous etiology, referred for community leg ulcer care, were eligible. Specially-trained nurses provided care to both groups using an evidence-informed protocol. Baseline data included socio-demographic, circumstance-of-living and a detailed wound assessment. Mean age of the cohort was 68 years. Satisfaction, healing, recurrence, pain, HRQL, and resource utilization did not differ between groups. If available, individuals should have an option of care venue given almost half of those approached indicated a clear preference for clinic or home. With outcomes being similar, health care planners and decision-makers, as well as individuals and their families, can feel confident that the setting of care will not impact the outcomes. However, larger studies in other contexts are needed to explore the interaction between choice and setting.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".