Characteristics and Components of Medical Group Visits for Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic health conditions are a major challenge to the health care system. Medical Group Visits (MGVs) are a valuable health care delivery model used in a variety of medical settings and patient populations. We conducted a systematic scoping review of MGV research literature for chronic health conditions to summarize the characteristics and individual components of MGVs in the United States of America and Canada. Design: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review methodology and searched five databases using nine widely used MGV-related terms. Subjects: We included studies conducted in the United States and Canada, whose participants were >18 years old and attended an MGV conducted in a medical setting by a billable health care provider. We excluded groups related to diabetes, pregnancy, and cancer. Results: Of 3777 studies identified, we found 55 eligible studies of which 9 are randomized controlled trials and 46 are observational studies. The majority of studies were conducted in academic medical centers, were observational in design, and recruited patients using physician referrals. The three most frequently studied groups include a combination of several chronic conditions (n = 12), chronic pain conditions (n = 10), and cardiovascular disease (n = 9). Curriculum components included didactics (n = 55), experiential activities (n = 27), and socializing components (n = 12). Didactic areas include (1) medical topics such as symptoms management (n = 27) of which 14 included pain management, and (2) lifestyle/educational component (n = 33) that comprised of talks on nutrition (n = 29), exercise (n = 20), stress (n = 16), and sleep (n = 10). The top integrative medicine (IM) modalities (n = 13) included: mindfulness techniques (n = 8), meditation (n = 6), and yoga (n = 5). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the recruitment, implementation, curriculum components, and outcomes reported. Conclusion: The MGV is a model of patient-centered care that has captured the attention of researchers. IM modalities are well represented in the curriculum components of MGVs. Further investigation into the components identified by this study, may help in better targeting of group interventions to patients and contexts, where it is most likely to be effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".