Integrated Care in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and <scp>Meta‐Analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Quality of life in Parkinson's disease (PD) is affected by motor and nonmotor symptoms, necessitating an integrated care approach. Existing care models vary considerably in numerous domains. The objectives of this study were to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of PD integrated care models and develop recommendations for a representative model. Methods We conducted a systematic review of published integrated care models and a meta‐analysis of randomized, controlled trials examining integrated care versus standard care. The primary outcome was health‐related quality of life using a validated PD scale. We evaluated levels of care integration using the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Results Forty‐eight publications were identified, including 8 randomized, controlled trials with health‐related quality of life data (n = 1,149 total PD patients). Qualitative evaluation of individual care model integration guided by the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care revealed frequent clinical and professional integration, but infrequent organizational and population‐based integration elements. Meta‐analysis of randomized, controlled trials revealed significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 90%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis including only outpatient care models (n = 5) indicated homogeneity of effects (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.52) and improved health‐related quality of life favoring integrated care, with a small effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.17; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.03; P = 0.02) . Conclusions Outpatient integrated PD care models may improve patient‐reported health‐related quality of life compared with standard care; however, because of variable methodological approaches and a high risk of bias related to inherent difficulties in study design (eg, blinding of participants and interventionists), generalizability of these results are difficult to establish. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care is a promising method of evaluating elements and levels of integration from individual patient care to population health in a PD context. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.022 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".