MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014248094 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190222

Perspectives of specialists and family physicians in interprofessional teams in caring for patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study

2020· article· en· W3014248094 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pauline Boeckxstaens, Judith Belle Brown, Sonja M. Reichert, Christopher Smith, Moira Stewart, Martin Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsToronto East General HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Interprofessional educationTelemedicineQualitative researchMedical educationMedicineHealth careNursingFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity often require services across different health care settings, yet team processes among settings are rarely implemented. We explored perceptions of specialists and family physicians collaborating in a telemedicine interprofessional consultation for patients with multimorbidity to better understand the value of bringing physicians together across the boundaries of health care settings. METHODS: This was a descriptive qualitative, interview-based study. Physicians who had previously participated in the Telemedicine Interprofessional Model of Practice for Aging and Complex Treatments (Telemedicine IMPACT Plus [TIP] Program) were invited to participate and asked to describe their experience of being a member of the program. Interviews were conducted from March to May 2016. We conducted an iterative and interpretive process using both individual and team analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: There were 15 participants, 9 specialists and 6 family physicians. Three themes emerged in the analysis: creating new perspectives on care for patients with multimorbidity by sharing knowledge, skills and attitudes; the shift from a consultant model to an interprofessional team model (allowing a window into the community, extending discussions beyond the medical model and focusing on the patient's health in context); and opportunities for learners, including learning about interprofessional collaboration and gaining exposure to a real-world model for caring for people with multimorbidity in outpatient settings. INTERPRETATION: Family physicians and specialists participating in a TIP Program believed the program improved their knowledge and skills, while also serving as an effective care delivery strategy. The findings also support that learners require more exposure to nontraditional consultant models in order to care for patients with multimorbidity effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207