Effects on patients of variations in the implementation of a cardiometabolic risk intervention program in Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2011, the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal (ASSSM), in partnership with the region's Centres de santé et de services sociaux (CSSS), coordinated the implementation of a program on cardiometabolic risk based on the Chronic Care Model. The program, intended for patients suffering from diabetes or hypertension, involved a series of individual follow-up appointments, group classes and exercise sessions. Our study assesses the impact on patient health outcomes of variations in the implementation of some aspects of the program among the six CSSSs taking part in the study. METHODS: The evaluation was carried out using a quasi-experimental "before and after" design. Implementation variables were constructed based on data collected during the implementation analysis regarding resources, compliance with the clinical process set out in the regional program, the program experience and internal coordination within the care team. Differences in differences using propensity scores were calculated for HbA1c results, achieving the blood pressure (BP) target, and two lifestyle targets (exercise level and carbohydrate distribution) at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, based on greater or lesser patient exposure to the implementation of various aspects of the program under study. RESULTS: The results focus on 1185 patients for whom we had data at the 6-month follow- up and the 992 patients from the 12-month follow-up. The difference in differences analysis shows no clear association between the extent of implementation of the various aspects of the program under study and patient health outcomes. CONCLUSION: The program produces effects on selected health indicators independent of variations in program implementation among the CSSSs taking part in the study. The results suggest that the effects of this type of program are more highly dependent on the delivery of interventions to patients than on the organizational aspects of its implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".