Impact of PRISMA, a Coordination-Type Integrated Service Delivery System for Frail Older People in Quebec (Canada): A Quasi-experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a coordination-type integrated service delivery (ISD) model on health, satisfaction, empowerment, and services utilization of frail older people. METHODS: Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA) is a population-based, quasi-experimental study with three experimental and three comparison areas. From a random selection of people 75 years or older, 1,501 persons identified at risk of functional decline were recruited (728 experimental and 773 comparison). Participants were measured over 4 years for disabilities (Functional Autonomy Measurement System), unmet needs, satisfaction with services, and empowerment. Information on utilization of health and social services was collected by bimonthly telephone questionnaires. RESULTS: Over the last 2 years (when the implementation rate was over 70%), there were 62 fewer cases of functional decline per 1,000 individuals in the experimental group. In the fourth year of the study, the annual incidence of functional decline was lower by 137 cases per 1,000 in the experimental group, whereas the prevalence of unmet needs in the comparison region was nearly double the prevalence observed in the experimental region. Satisfaction and empowerment were significantly higher in the experimental group. For health services utilization, a lower number of visits to emergency rooms and hospitalizations than expected was observed in the experimental cohort. CONCLUSION: The PRISMA model improves the efficacy of the health care system for frail older people.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".