Systematic Review of Outcomes from Home‐Based Primary Care Programs for Homebound Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of home-based primary care for homebound older adults on individual, caregiver, and systems outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review of home-based primary care interventions for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65) using the Cochrane, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases from the earliest available date through March 15, 2014. Studies were included if the house calls visitor was the ongoing primary care provider and if the intervention measured emergency department visits, hospitalizations, hospital beds days of care, long-term care admissions, or long-term care bed days of care. SETTING: Home-based primary care programs. PARTICIPANTS: Homebound community-dwelling older adults (N = 46,154). MEASUREMENTS: Emergency department visits, hospitalizations, hospital bed days of care, long-term care admissions, long-term care bed days of care, costs, program design, and individual and caregiver quality of life and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Of 357 abstracts identified, nine met criteria for review. The nine interventions were all based in North America, with five emerging from the Veterans Affairs system. Eight of nine programs demonstrated substantial effects on at least one inclusion outcome, with seven programs affecting two outcomes. Six interventions shared three core program components: interprofessional care teams, regular interprofessional care meetings, and after-hours support. CONCLUSION: Specifically designed home-based primary care programs may substantially affect individual, caregiver and systems outcomes. Adherence to the core program components identified in this review could guide the development and spread of these programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".