A state‐of‐the‐art review of the experience of care coordination interventions for people living with multimorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore recent research on care coordination interventions for people living with multimorbidity, from the perspective of the person receiving care. BACKGROUND: Care coordination interventions for people living with multimorbidity show some effectiveness in improving management of their health and reducing potentially preventable hospitalisations. The experience of people enrolled in care coordination interventions requires further exploration. DESIGN: State-of-the-art review. METHODS: A review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist where five databases (The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL and MEDLINE) were searched for qualitative sources published from January 2008-March 2019. Two additional databases focused on multimorbidity and integrated care were included in the search. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened using inclusion criteria. Reference lists of the included articles were hand-searched. Summary tables were developed for data extraction, and the data were mapped to the research question. RESULTS: Eighteen primary research articles were included. Three themes of participant experience were identified: (a) relationships built on trust, (b), a sense of safety and security and (c) feeling cared for and respected. CONCLUSION: The contribution of qualitative approaches to evaluating the experiences of care for people living with multimorbidity is growing. Participants' describe a focus on relationships formed with healthcare professionals during care coordination. Further research incorporating lived experiences of participants could illuminate these concepts further. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: People living with multimorbidity who require assistance via care coordination value trusting relationships with healthcare professionals, who respect their needs and provide a sense of security. Understanding participant experiences is important to shape care coordination interventions that incorporate person-centred approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".