Patient perspectives on primary care for multimorbidity: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Improving healthcare for people with multiple chronic or ongoing conditions is receiving increased attention, particularly due to the growing number of people experiencing multimorbidity (MM) and concerns about the sustainability of the healthcare system. Primary care has been promoted as an important resource for supporting people with MM to live well with their conditions and to prevent unnecessary use of health care services. However, traditional primary care has been criticized for not centring the needs and preferences of people with MM themselves. Our aim was to conduct a review that centred on the perspective of people with MM in multiple ways, including having patient partners co-lead the design, conduct and reporting of findings, and focusing on literature that reported the perspective of people with MM, irrespective of it being experimental or nonexperimental. METHODS: We searched for published literature in CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE All (Ovid). Findings from experimental and nonexperimental studies were integrated into collaboration with patient partners. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in the review. Findings are described in five categories: (1) Care that is tailored to my unique situation; (2) meaningful inclusion in the team; (3) a healthcare team that is ready and able to address my complex needs; (4) supportive relationships and (5) access when and where I need it. CONCLUSION: This review supports a reorientation of primary care systems to better reflect the experiences and perspectives of people with MM. This can be accomplished by involving patient partners in the design and evaluation of primary care services and incentivizing collaboration among health and social supports and services for people with MM. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners were involved in the design and conduct of this review, and in the preparation of the manuscript. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".