The experience of care coordination for people living with multimorbidity at risk of hospitalisation: an interpretative phenomenological analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is growing interest in improving the care of people living with multimorbidity who require care coordination to help manage their health and reduce risk of hospitalisation. There has been limited past research exploring experiences of care for people living with multimorbidity. This qualitative study sought to explore the care experience of people enrolled in a care coordination intervention.Design: We interviewed 23 people living with multimorbidity enrolled in a care coordination intervention to examine their perceptions of the care experience. We used interpretative phenomenological analysis to identify themes from participants’ perspectives of involvement in their care, using information to make decisions, and the meanings they made of their care experiences.Results: We identified three master themes of the participants’ experience of care: Needing expert guidance, Circle of care, and I want to be spoken to like a person. We discuss these findings in the context of the recent literature on person-centred care.Conclusion: Understanding participants’ experience of care reinforces the need for person-centred approaches. These findings suggest care coordination offered to people living with multimorbidity can be implemented through practical support and information alongside establishing a relationship of trust.
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) | 0.000 | 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".