A System of Integrated Care for Older Persons With Disabilities in Canada: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care for elderly persons with disabilities is usually characterized by fragmentation, often leading to more intrusive and expensive forms of care such as hospitalization and institutionalization. There has been increasing interest in the ability of integrated models to improve health, satisfaction, and service utilization outcomes. METHODS: A program of integrated care for vulnerable community-dwelling elderly persons (SIPA [French acronym for System of Integrated Care for Older Persons]) was compared to usual care with a randomized control trial. SIPA offered community-based care with local agencies responsible for the full range and coordination of community and institutional (acute and long-term) health and social services. Primary outcomes were utilization and public costs of institutional and community care. Secondary outcomes included health status, satisfaction with care, caregiver burden, and out-of-pocket expenses. RESULTS: Accessibility was increased for health and social home care with increased intensification of home health care. There was a 50% reduction in hospital alternate level inpatient stays ("bed blockers") but no significant differences in utilization and costs of emergency department, hospital acute inpatient, and nursing home stays. For all study participants, average community costs per person were C dollar 3390 higher in the SIPA group but institutional costs were C dollar 3770 lower with, as hypothesized, no difference in total overall costs per person in the two groups. Satisfaction was increased for SIPA caregivers with no increase in caregiver burden or out-of-pocket costs. As expected, there was no difference in health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated systems appear to be feasible and have the potential to reduce hospital and nursing home utilization without increasing costs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".