Outcomes of coordinated and integrated interventions targeting frail elderly people: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to review randomised controlled trials on integrated and coordinated interventions targeting frail elderly people living in the community, their outcome measurements and their effects on the client, the caregiver and healthcare utilisation. A literature search of PubMed, AgeLine, Cinahl and AMED was carried out with the following inclusion criteria: original article; integrated intervention including case management or equivalent coordinated organisation; frail elderly people living in the community; randomised controlled trials; in the English language, and published in refereed journals between 1997 and July 2007. The final review included nine articles, each describing one original integrated intervention study. Of these, one was from Italy, three from the USA and five from Canada. Seven studies reported at least one outcome measurement significantly in favour of the intervention, one reported no difference and one was in favour of the control. Five of the studies reported at least one outcome on client level in favour of the intervention. Only two studies reported caregiver outcomes, both in favour of the intervention for caregiver satisfaction, but with no effect on caregiver burden. Outcomes focusing on healthcare utilisation were significantly in favour of the intervention in five of the studies. Five of the studies used outcome measurements with unclear psychometric properties and four used disease-specific measurements. This review provides some evidence that integrated and coordinated care is beneficial for the population of frail elderly people and reduces health care utilisation. There is a lack of knowledge about how integrated and coordinated care affects the caregiver. This review pinpoints the importance of using valid outcome measurements and describing both the content and implementation of the intervention.
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 | 0.048 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".