MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944167777 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-3107-4

Rationale and methods of an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Community Paramedicine at Home (CP@home) program for frequent users of emergency medical services in multiple Ontario regions: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2944167777 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gina Agarwal, Melissa Pirrie, Brent McLeod, Ricardo Angeles, Walter Tavares, Francine Marzanek, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactThe Wilson CentreRegional Municipality of NiagaraUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Medical homeMedical emergencyNursingFamily medicineAlternative medicinePrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Frequent users of emergency medical services for issues that could be more appropriately managed through non-urgent care deplete the limited resources of the health-care system. Community paramedicine is an emerging field that extends the role of paramedics beyond the traditional emergency response. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the impact of a community paramedicine home-visit intervention with frequent users on reducing ambulance calls, hospital visits, and admissions. The study will also provide a cross-sectional description of the characteristics of frequent users of emergency medical services. METHODS/DESIGN: An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial with parallel intervention and control groups will be conducted in four paramedic services in Ontario. The sample size has been calculated as 261 per group for a 25% reduction in ambulance calls. Eligible participants will be frequent callers (three or more calls in 6 months), individuals who call for at least one lift assist, or individuals referred to the program by a paramedic. Individuals will be randomly allocated to receive either the Community Paramedicine at Home (CP@home) program intervention or their usual care (control). Intervention participants will receive up to three visits from a community paramedic, who will conduct health risk assessments, provide health promotion and education, provide referrals to local resources, and fax reports back to the family physician. Data will be collected from administrative databases (e.g., paramedic services), a custom CP@home program database, participant surveys, and key informant interviews. An intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted, including descriptive statistics and multi-level modeling to find factors predictive of primary and secondary outcomes. A thematic analysis will be used to analyze the qualitative outcomes. An economic analysis will consider the cost-effectiveness of the program. DISCUSSION: CP@home has the potential to reduce the health-care system burden significantly by targeting current frequent users of emergency medical services. By targeting this population, CP@home aims to decrease ambulance calls and emergency department visits, reducing health-care costs and improving the quality of life of a vulnerable population. If successful, CP@home will inform the development of community paramedicine policies and the expanding role of paramedics in regions across Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02835989 . Registered on July 14 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207