Let’s Get Real about Person- and Family-Centred Geriatric Home Care: A Realist Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude a examiné les mécanismes complexes intervenant lors de la prestation de soins axés sur la personne et la famille (SAPF) par des équipes de soins gériatriques à domicile. Une approche par synthèse réaliste a été utilisée pour élaborer un cadre d'évaluation qui a inclus 159 références provenant de la littérature scientifique, des consultations d'experts canadiens en SAPF, des recherches ciblées dans les bases PubMed/MEDLINE® et CINAHL, et des recensions de la littérature grise canadienne. Les références ont été sélectionnées par deux personnes, selon une approche consensuelle avec évaluation de la qualité. Les données ont été extraites et synthétisées en tenant compte du contexte, des mécanismes et des configurations des résultats dans un cadre théorique de SAPF d'équipe pour les soins gériatriques à domicile. Le cadre présente les contributions spécifiques prédominantes des infirmières, des ergothérapeutes et des physiothérapeutes, leurs apports collectifs impliquant des communications pour des équipes virtuelles, ainsi que le soutien du système nécessité pour la prestation de SAPF d'équipe complets. Les résultats de cette étude pourraient contribuer à l'amélioration de l'éducation sur les SAPF et des lignes directrices sur les pratiques exemplaires, en vue d'assurer une prestation plus intégrée des SAPF dans les soins gériatriques offerts à domicile ou dans d'autres milieux comportant des équipes de soins. This study investigated the complex mechanisms underlying team-based delivery of person- and family-centred care (PFCC) in geriatric home care. Using a realist synthesis approach, an evaluative framework was developed and populated with 159 references from scoping the literature, consulting Canadian experts in PFCC, purposive searching in PubMed/MEDLINE® and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and reviewing grey literature within Canada. References were selected using a two-person review and/or consensus approach and quality appraisal. Data were extracted and synthesized using context, mechanism, and outcome configurations into a theoretical framework of team-based PFCC in geriatric home care. The framework details the predominant discipline-specific contributions of nurses, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists, their collective contributions through communication in the context of a virtual team, and the system-level support required for comprehensive team-based PFCC delivery. Findings from this study could inform improvements to PFCC education, best practice guidelines, and more integrated delivery of PFCC in geriatric home care and other team-based care environments.
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 | 0.062 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".