MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Two‐year follow‐up of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical nurse specialist intervention, inpatient, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis

2003· article· en· W2086337511 on OpenAlex
Gerhardus J. Tijhuis, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Johanna M. W. Hazes, Ferdinand C. Breedveld, P.M. Theodora Vliet Vlieland

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDutch Arthritis Association
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical nurse specialistQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Clinical trialFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To compare the long-term effectiveness of care delivered by a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) with inpatient team care and day patient team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and increasing functional limitations. Background. The role of CNSs in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is evolving, and their effectiveness in comparison with care provided by a rheumatologist alone has been established. However, long-term controlled studies showing how the effectiveness of CNSs compares with that of other forms of co-ordinated care, such as multidisciplinary team care, are lacking. METHODS: Two hundred and ten patients rheumatoid arthritis patients were randomized to care delivered by a CNS in a rheumatology outpatient clinic (12 weeks), inpatient team care (2 weeks) and day patient team care (3 weeks). Clinical assessments recorded on study entry, weeks 12, 26, 52, 78 and 104 comprised the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and MacMaster Toronto Arthritis (MACTAR) patient preference interview as primary outcome measures. Grip strength, walk test, RAND-36, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life questionnaire and disease activity score (DAS) were applied as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: No significant differences in medical treatment, use of services of other health professionals, introduction of adaptive equipment or number of hospitalizations were observed between the three treatment groups during 2 year follow-up, except that visits to nurse specialists were more frequent and home help was less frequent in the CNS group. A comparison of clinical outcomes among the three groups and a comparison between the nurse specialist and inpatient and day patient care groups together did not show any significant differences. Within all three groups functional status, quality of life and disease activity improved significantly (P < 0.05). In general, the results obtained after 12 weeks remained stable until 104 weeks after the start of the study. CONCLUSION: Care provided by a CNS in an outpatient rheumatology clinic has a similar long-term clinical outcome to inpatient and day patient team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A CNS intervention appears to be an effective innovation in the care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.330 · 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