A Scoping Review of Patient Support Program Services Across Diverse Settings and Disease Areas Described from a People-Centered Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundGovernments, private industries and not-for-profit organizations are increasingly investing resources in support programs for patients. These programs may provide self-management strategies enabling patients to manage their disease and medication regimen and/or access to medications, therapies and health services, with the goal to improve health outcomes. The objectives of this scoping review were to: (i) describe the characteristics of patient support programs (PSPs), for patients on medication regimens, (ii) identify subthemes that describe PSP services, and (iii) to classify the service subthemes, using an integrated people-centered (IP-C) perspective. MethodsPRISMA-ScR methodology and Covidence software were used to facilitate the review of 479 articles, and the selection and screening of 70 original research articles that described PSP services and their impact on clinical, humanistic and/or economic outcomes. A search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Academic Search Ultimate, and Web of Science was conducted covering a 10 year period, from 2010 to 2020. The PSPs identified were organized into subthemes identified as part of an inductive process. The thematic areas were grouped into one of three people-centered categories that reflect the WHO vision for IPC health care. ResultsThe 70 articles reviewed, describe PSPs covering more than nine disease categories. The majority of the articles were published in North America, predominantly in the United States (26) and Canada (11), and also in Germany (6), the United Kingdom (6), China (4) and other countries (18). PSPs were funded and delivered by private drug or device manufacturers, government organizations, specialty pharmacies and also non-governmental groups (e.g., not-for-profit organizations), private hospitals, private payers (e.g., insurance companies) and various partnership types among these organizations. Fifty-six unique PSPs were identified that offered a range of services. Twenty-five PSP service subthemes were identified and these were each placed into one of three over-arching patient-centered categories: (i) access and equity services; (ii) quality and health services, and (iii) patient and caregiver empowerment and self-management services.ConclusionsPSPs offer various services that can be optimized and synergized to facilitate equitable, accessible, quality health services that support patient empowerment for the self-management of disease for improved health 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 | 0.026 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".