Enhanced Home Care Interventions for Community Residing Adults Compared With Usual Care on Health and Cost-effectiveness Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The need for home care services is expanding around the world with increased attention to the resources required to produce them. To assist decision making, there is a need to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative programs within home care. Electronic searches were performed in five databases (before February 2020) identifying 3292 potentially relevant studies that assessed new or enhanced home care interventions compared with usual care for adults with an accompanying economic evaluation. From these, 133 articles were selected for full-text screening; 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Six main areas of research were identified including the following: alternative nursing care (n = 4), interdisciplinary care coordination (n = 4), fall prevention (n = 4), telemedicine/remote monitoring (n = 2), restorative/reablement care (n = 2), and one multifactorial undernutrition intervention study. Risk of bias was found to be high/weak (n = 7) or have some concerns/moderate (n = 6) rating, in addition to inconsistent reporting of important information required for economic evaluations. Both health and cost outcomes had mixed results. Cost-effective interventions were found in two areas including alternative nursing care and reablement/restorative care. Clinicians and decision makers are encouraged to carefully evaluate the quality of the studies because of issues with risk of bias and incomplete reporting of economic outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".