A review of instruments to measure interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management for community-living older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is acknowledged internationally that chronic disease management (CDM) for community-living older adults (CLOA) is an increasingly complex process. CDM for older adults, who are often living with multiple chronic conditions, requires coordination of various health and social services. Coordination is enabled through interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among individual providers, community organizations, and health sectors. Measuring IPC is complicated given there are multiple conceptualisations and measures of IPC. A literature review of several healthcare, psychological, and social science electronic databases was conducted to locate instruments that measure IPC at the team level and have published evidence of their reliability and validity. Five instruments met the criteria and were critically reviewed to determine their strengths and limitations as they relate to CDM for CLOA. A comparison of the characteristics, psychometric properties, and overall concordance of each instrument with salient attributes of IPC found the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool to be the most appropriate instrument for measuring IPC for CDM in CLOA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".