Interdisciplinary integration of nursing and psychiatry (INaP) for the treatment of dizziness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The traditional medical care model of "assess and refer" requires revamping to address the multifaceted needs of patients with chronic dizziness and imbalance by adopting an interdisciplinary approach to care that integrates nursing and psychiatry (INaP). We aim to present a novel interdisciplinary approach that incorporates INaP in the care of patients with chronic dizziness and imbalance. METHODS: Presentation of an interdisciplinary model of care that incorporates INaP provided at the Toronto General Hospital in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: Interdisciplinary care incorporating INaP, which includes the provision of support from an interdisciplinary health care team (ie, neurotologist, neurologist, psychiatrist, physiotherapist, and nurse clinician), psychoeducation about the interaction between chronic dizziness and psychiatric comorbidities, and ongoing access to medical and psychosocial assessment and intervention, addresses the physical and emotional aspects of patients' experience with chronic dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: The novel comprehensive interdisciplinary approach incorporating INaP may be more effective than interdisciplinary care without INaP in improving clinical outcomes in patients with chronic dizziness. In the subsequent study, we present data comparing patients treated for chronic dizziness and imbalance with and without the integration of INaP in an interdisciplinary setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 130:1792-1799, 2020.
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 | 0.000 | 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".