In-home care for optimizing chronic disease management in the community: an evidence-based analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emerging attention on in-home care in Canada assumes that chronic disease management will be optimized if it takes place in the community as opposed to the health care setting. Both the patient and the health care system will benefit, the latter in terms of cost savings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of care delivered in the home (i.e., in-home care) with no home care or with usual care/care received outside of the home (e.g., health care setting). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed on January 25, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 1, 2006, until January 25, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: An evidence-based analysis examined whether there is a difference in mortality, hospital utilization, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional status, and disease-specific clinical measures for in-home care compared with no home care for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic wounds, and chronic disease / multimorbidity. Data was abstracted and analyzed in a pooled analysis using Review Manager. When needed, subgroup analysis was performed to address heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 1,277 citations from which 12 randomized controlled trials met the study criteria. Based on these, a 12% reduced risk for in-home care was shown for the outcome measure of combined events including all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (relative risk [RR]: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.97). Patients receiving in-home care had an average of 1 less unplanned hospitalization (mean difference [MD]: -1.03; 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.53) and an average of 1 less emergency department (ED) visit (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -1.87 to -0.77). A beneficial effect of in-home care was also shown on activities of daily living (MD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.01), including less difficulty dressing above the waist or below the waist, grooming, bathing/showering, toileting, and feeding. These results were based on moderate quality of evidence. Additional beneficial effects of in-home care were shown for HRQOL although this was based on low quality of evidence. LIMITATIONS: Different characterization of outcome measures across studies prevented the inclusion of all eligible studies for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, education-based in-home care is effective at improving outcomes of patients with a range of heart disease severity when delivered by nurses during a single home visit or on an ongoing basis. In-home visits by occupational therapists and physical therapists targeting modification of tasks and the home environment improved functional activities for community-living adults with chronic disease.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".