Effectiveness of person‐ and family‐centred care transition interventions on patient‐ oriented outcomes: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to critically analyse the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of PFCC transition interventions on the quality of care and the experience of patients. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Handbook's guidelines and adhered to a standardized reporting format: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). METHODS: Four databases and grey literature were searched. Following a two-step screening process, data from the eligible studies were extracted. Risk of bias and quality of the studies were also assessed. Narrative synthesis and vote counting were used for the data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 28 articles met our inclusion criteria. Interventions varied in regards to the extent of the PFCC focus and the comprehensiveness of the transition of care. Educating patients to promote self-management was the most commonly included component and it was described in all 28 interventions.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it