Integrated multidisciplinary care for the management of chronic conditions in adults: an overview of reviews and an example of using indirect evidence to inform clinical practice recommendations in the field of rare diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrated care models have been adopted for individuals with chronic conditions and for persons with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence from reviews for the effects of integrated multidisciplinary care for chronic conditions in adults and to provide an example of using this evidence to make recommendations for haemophilia care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to January 2016, and reviewed reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of at least one randomized study, on adults with non-communicable chronic conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. Quality of reviews was assessed using ROBIS, and the evidence assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We included seven reviews reporting on three chronic conditions. We found low to high quality evidence. Integrated care results in a reduction in mortality; likely a reduction in emergency visits and an improvement in function; little to no difference in quality of life, but shorter hospital stays; and may result in little to no difference in missed days of school or work. No studies reported educational attainment, or patient adherence and knowledge. When used for haemophilia, judgment about the indirectness of the evidence was driven by disease, intervention or outcome characteristics. CONCLUSION: This overview provides the most up to date evidence on integrated multidisciplinary care for chronic conditions in adults, and an example of how it can be used for guidelines in rare diseases.
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 | 0.053 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".