A scoping review of shared care models for rheumatoid arthritis with patient-initiated follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An emerging strategy to address access challenges to rheumatologists for patients with RA is shared care between primary and specialist care, with patient-initiated rheumatologist follow-up as needed. The objective of this scoping review was to explore studies implementing this model of care. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from 01/01/2000-31/03/2022 using three main concepts (RA, shared care, patient-initiated follow-up). English-language studies of any design were included if they described the implementation and/or outcomes of shared care model for RA with patient-initiated follow-up. Two authors reviewed and selected articles in duplicate and extracted data on study characteristics, care model implementation and outcomes according to a pre-specified protocol. RESULTS: Following duplicate removal, 1578 articles were screened for inclusion and 58 underwent full-text review. Sixteen articles were included, representing 10 unique studies. Five studies had qualitative outcomes and two were pre-implementation studies. Model implementation varied significantly between studies. Effectiveness data was available in 10 studies and demonstrated equivalent outcomes for the model of care (disease activity, radiographic damage, quality of life). Health system costs were equivalent or lower than usual care. While satisfaction with care was equivalent or improved in shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up, some concerns were expressed in qualitative evaluation around appropriate patient selection for such models, and information for health equity evaluation was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: While shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up may offer comparable outcomes for RA, further work is required to understand patient preferences, health equity considerations and longer-term outcomes for such models of care.
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 | 0.032 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".