Models of Care Delivery for Children With Medical Complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with medical complexity (CMC) are a subset of children and youth with special health care needs with high resource use and health care costs. Novel care delivery models in which care coordination and other services to CMC are provided are a focus of national and local health care and policy initiatives. Current models of care for CMC can be grouped into 3 main categories: (1) primary care-centered models, (2) consultative- or comanagement-centered models, and (3) episode-based models. Each model has unique advantages and disadvantages. Evaluations of these models have demonstrated positive outcomes, but most studies have limited generalizability for broader populations of CMC. A lack of standardized outcomes and population definitions for CMC hinders assessment of the comparative effectiveness of different models of care and identification of which components of the models lead to positive outcomes. Ongoing challenges include inadequate support for family caregivers and threats to the sustainability of models of care. Collaboration among key stakeholders (patients, families, providers, payers, and policy makers) is needed to address the gaps in care and create best practice guidelines to ensure the delivery of high-value care for CMC.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".