MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120395711 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-409

Development of a Chronic Care Model for Neurological Conditions (CCM-NC)

2014· article· en· W2120395711 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Susan Jaglal, Sara J. T. Guilcher, Tarik Bereket, Mae Kwan, Sarah Munce, James Conklin, Joan Versnel, Tanya Packer, Molly C. Verrier, Connie Marras, Kristen Pitzul, Richard J. Riopelle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityConcordia UniversityCanadian Institute for Health Information
FundersOntario Rett Syndrome AssociationUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteParkinson Society CanadaPublic Health AgencyDystonia Medical Research Foundation CanadaMuscular Dystrophy CanadaMultiple Sclerosis SocietyOntario Neurotrauma FoundationAlzheimer SocietyDystonia Medical Research FoundationMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaOntario Federation for Cerebral PalsyPublic Health Agency of CanadaMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsHealth administrationNursing researchNursingMedicineHealth informaticsHealth careNonprobability samplingHealth policySocial policyChronic careHealth services researchPublic healthOpenness to experienceFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationEconomic growthPolitical scienceChronic disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persons with neurological conditions and their families face a number of challenges with the provision of health and community-based services. The purpose of this study was to understand the existing health and community service needs and gaps in care and to use this information to develop a model to specify factors and processes that may improve the quality of care and health and well-being for persons with neurological conditions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with health care professionals, community-based non-health care professionals working with individuals with neurological conditions, and policy makers -from the Ministries of Health, Community and Social Services, Transportation and Education- across Canada. We used a purposive sampling and snowballing approach to obtain maximum variation across professions, sector and geography (provinces and territories, rural and urban). Data analysis was an iterative, constant comparative process involving descriptive and interpretive analyses and was initially guided by the components of the Expanded Chronic Care Model. RESULTS: A total of 180 individuals completed the interviews: 39% (n = 70) health care professionals, 47% (n = 85) community-based non-health care professionals, and 14% (n = 25) policy makers. Based on the data we developed the Chronic Care Model for Neurological Conditions (CCM-NC). The major needs/gaps are represented by the following themes: acceptance and openness to neurological conditions, evidence informed policy, investments and funding, supported transitions, caregiver support, and life enhancing resources (education, employment, housing and transportation), knowledge and awareness of neurological conditions and availability and access to health services. The model maintains that intersectoral collaboration across the health system, community and policy components is needed. It recognizes that attitudes, policies, enhanced community integration and health system changes are needed to develop activated patients and families, proactive service delivery teams, a person-centred health system and healthy public policy for persons with neurological conditions. CONCLUSION: The CCM-NC will generate debate and discussion about the actions needed in each of the model components to enable people with neurological conditions to sustain healthier lives. Next steps include validating the model with persons with neurological conditions, in and outside of the Canadian context and developing and evaluating interventions to test the model.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207