Short report. Compliance with recommendations in a geriatric outreach assessment service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to measure the extent to which the recommendations of a geriatric outreach assessment service were being followed, and to determine what patient-related factors were associated with compliance with assessment recommendations. METHODS: eighty-one eligible patients or caregivers who had an assessment in a geriatric outreach service participated in a telephone interview. The interview focused on the use of health services and compliance with assessment recommendations. Patient-related variables obtained from charts included demographics, caregiver support and stability, health status and assessment recommendations. RESULTS: overall compliance with recommendations from the geriatric outreach assessment service was 65%. Patients were less likely comply fully with recommendations if they had a high number of recommendations [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12-0.46; P = 0.0001], inadequate caregiver support (OR = 0.212; 95% CI = 0.04 to 1.02; P = 0.0523), or the ability to transfer themselves independently (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.02-0.63; P = 0.0124). They were more likely to have full compliance if they had normal vision (OR = 6.67; 95% CI = 1.22-36.46; P = 0.0284). CONCLUSION: it is important to focus on key issues when developing service recommendations and on the role of the informal caregiver in facilitating compliance with them. Good communication between the patient or caregiver and the family physician and geriatric services can help to identify strategies which might improve acceptance of recommendations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".