A systematic review of frailty education programs for health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify and examine the reported effectiveness of education programs for health professionals on frailty. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of articles published up to June 2021, examining the evaluation of frailty training or education programs targeting health professionals/students. The participant demographics, program content and structure, effectiveness assessment methodology and outcomes, as well as participant feedback, were recorded with narrative synthesis of results. RESULTS: There were nine programs that have evaluated training of health professionals in frailty. These programs varied with respect to intensity, duration, and delivery modality, and targeted a range of health professionals and students. The programs were well-received and found to be effective in increasing frailty knowledge and self-perceived competence in frailty assessment. Common features of successful programs included having multidisciplinary participants, delivering a clinically tailored program and using flexible teaching modalities. Of note, many programs assessed self-perceived efficacy rather than objective changes in patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing attention on frailty in clinical practice, this systematic review found that there continues to be limited reporting of frailty training programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".