Promoting chronic disease management in persons with complex social needs: A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are both ethical and practical imperatives to address health inequity issues related to chronic disease management for persons with social complexity, existing programs often do not appropriately address the needs of these individuals. This leads to low levels of participation in programs, suboptimal chronic disease management, and higher health-care utilization. The aims of this project were to describe the challenges related to availability, accessibility, and acceptability faced by socially complex patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who were eligible, but declined enrollment in a traditional Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP). Using a qualitative descriptive study approach informed by a health equity lens, interviews with participants, managers, and a focus group with providers were used to gather data addressing the above aims. Qualitative data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's theoretical thematic analysis approach. The ability of participants to manage chronic disease was profoundly influenced by contextual and personal factors, such as poverty, disability, personal attitudes and beliefs (including shame, mistrust, and hopelessness), and barriers inherent in the organization of the health-care system. The existing chronic disease management program did not adequately address the most critical needs of socially complex patients. Challenges with accessibility and acceptability of chronic disease management and health services played important roles in the ways these socially complex participants managed their chronic illness. The individualistic approach to self-management of chronic illness inherent in conventional CDMP can be poorly aligned with the needs, capacity, and circumstances of many socially complex patients. Innovative models of care that promote incremental and guided approaches to enhancing health and improving self-efficacy need further development and evaluation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".