Protocol of a multimethod descriptive study: adapting hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to the rural healthcare context in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Faced with costly hospital readmissions of increasingly complex patient populations, transitional care is a priority throughout Ontario, Canada; yet, rural patients have significantly more hospital readmissions and emergency department visits during the first 30 days following hospitalisation than urban patients. Because transitional care (TC) was designed and evaluated with urban patients, addressing urban-rural disparities in TC effectiveness requires increasing the alignment of TC with the needs of patients and families in rural communities and the rural nursing practice context. The study objectives are to (1) determine the perceived acceptability of evidence-based TC interventions targeting postdischarge care management to patients, families and nurses and (2) adapt the interventions to patients' and families' needs and the rural nursing practice context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multimethod study has two phases. In phase I, 32-48 patients and families will rate their level of preparedness for discharge and the acceptability of evidence-based TC interventions. Participants will be engaged in semi-structured interviews about their care management needs, their perspectives on the interventions in fitting those needs and in providing suggestions for adapting the interventions to fit their needs. TC interventions perceived as acceptable to patients and families will be examined in phase II. In phase II, 32-48 hospital and home care nurses will rate the acceptability of the interventions identified by patients and families and attend focus group discussions on the feasibility of providing the interventions. Phase I and II data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at York University and participating hospital sites. Findings will be communicated through plain language fact sheets, policy briefs, press-releases and peer-reviewed conference presentations and manuscripts.
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 | 0.070 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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".