History and Measurement of Continuity of Care in Mental Health Services and Evidence of Its Role in Outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide a brief history of the concept of continuity of care, to update evidence of its association with patient outcomes, and to identify optimal characteristics of a continuity-of-care instrument. METHODS: Articles describing recent (1990 to 2002) empirical work on continuity of care were drawn from a broader set of 305 articles about continuity of care that were obtained from a systematic literature search. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The literature shows that ideas about continuity of care have changed in concert with general service delivery changes over the decades. Since 1997, only eight studies have used operationally defined measures either to describe continuity of care in mental health services or to examine the association of continuity of care with outcomes for adults with severe and persistent mental illness. Only three groups of researchers have published articles on development of continuity-of-care measures. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence that continuity of care results in better client outcomes, which may be primarily attributable to the underdevelopment of measures. Measurement of continuity of care must become more sophisticated before key questions about the association of continuity of care with outcomes can be examined and before the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve continuity of care can be rigorously evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it