MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092171505 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.521

Team-based care intervention: views and perspectives from patients and healthcare professionals

2020· article· en· W3092171505 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Pais, Grégoire Wuerzner, Arnaud Chioléro, Philippe Schaller, Lyne Cloutier, Gilles Paradis, Michel Burnier, Valérie Santschi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Health careFamily medicineHealth professionalsPatient satisfactionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Blood pressure (BP) control is poor in European countries. Team-based care (TBC) intervention involving different healthcare professionals has the potential to improve BP control. Within a patient-centered approach, we evaluated patients' and healthcare professionals' opinion about a TBC intervention involving nurses, pharmacists, and physicians (MD). Methods As part of the TBC study, a pragmatic randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of a TBC interprofessional intervention on BP control, we collected opinion of patients and team-based members (nurses, community pharmacists, and MD) at the end of study period using specific questionnaires. A mean TBC-satisfaction score was computed, assessing various aspects of the intervention, and ranged from 0 to 60, where a higher score represents a greater satisfaction. Results All patients (100%), pharmacists (100%), MD (92%) and nurses (80%) were satisfied with TBC intervention. Most patients considered that TBC can help improving BP control (92%), drug intake (71%), and lifestyle habits (84%). Furthermore, patients reported that TBC improved their relationship with nurses (66%), pharmacists (55%), and MD (50%). Patients also reported that their discussion with nurses (95%) and pharmacists (89%) helped improve medication intake. Healthcare professionals considered that TBC improve the quality of care (91%) and an added value for the management of chronic disease (79%). Mean TBC-satisfaction score was higher among MD [42 (SD: 9)] and pharmacists [45 (SD: 6)] compared with nurses [36 (SD: 9)]. Conclusions Overall, patients and healthcare professionals were highly satisfied regarding TBC engaging different healthcare professionals in a primary care setting. Key messages TBC intervention seem to be well appreciated by patients and healthcare professionals. Favourable patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives will help implementing TBC intervention.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207