MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223222740 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n5p32

Post-hospitalization transition to home: Patient perspectives of a personalized approach

2016· article· en· W2223222740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beth E. Burbach, Marlene Z. Cohen, Lani Zimmerman, Myra Schmaderer, Leeza Struwe, Audrey Paulman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionThematic analysisQualitative researchMedicineSelf-managementTransitional careFocus groupNursingHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Successful transition from hospital to home for persons having multiple chronic illnesses is vital for improved health and reduction of hospital readmissions. This qualitative study was undertaken to explore patients’ experiences with tailored care transition interventions in order to improve future interventions in a planned larger study. Methods: Eighteen patients were interviewed either individually or in focus groups. Patients had previously completed a larger study that evaluated the impact of post-hospital discharge care transitions interventions, which were tailored to cognitive level and patient activation status. Data were analyzed using qualitative, thematic analysis techniques. Results: The overarching theme identified as a result of the qualitative interviews was: Tailoring Interventions to Address the Complexity of Multiple Chronic Illnesses. It included Checking in or checking out: Patient activation and self-management of chronic illness; Increasing complexity: Management of medications for chronic illness; and Paving a path through complexity with caring. These themes were found in all participants, across all groups of the interventions. Conclusions: Tailored interventions, which included individual assessment of needs and development and implementation of a tailored self-management plan, were viewed as effective by patients for self-management of chronic illness, particularly medication reconciliation and weekly goal setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207