MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252059949 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648514

Determining the Characteristics of Transition-Based Interventions most Effective in Enhancing Quality of Care for Seniors: A systematic Review

2021· review· en· W4252059949 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Rosato

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Transitional careQuality (philosophy)Descriptive statisticsNursingMedicineTest (biology)Independence (probability theory)PsychologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Seniors (65 years or older) often require additional support and resources during the transition from acute care to home. A comprehensive understanding of the transition-based literature will support the development and implementation of effective interventions, possibly resulting in organizational and individual benefits. Purpose: A systematic review was conducted to identify the characteristics of transition-based interventions most effective in enhancing quality of care for seniors transitioning from hospital to home. Methods: Primary research that evaluated a transitional care intervention for seniors and measured one of more quality of care outcome were included. Chi-square test for independence, ANOVA, and descriptive analysis were used. Results: Forty-six interventions were reviewed for their specific characteristics. Multicomponent interventions which used multiple delivery methods (face-to-face/telephone), over one-to-three months (p= <0.05), were most effective in enhancing quality of care. Implications/Conclusions: Understanding the most effective intervention characteristics may support the provision of effective/efficient transitional care for seniors moving from acute care to home.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→