MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372326220 · doi:10.1002/mds.29413

Validation of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care Measurement Tool in Parkinson's Disease

2023· article· en· W4372326220 on OpenAlexaff
Pim Valentijn, Carsten Eggers, Bastiaan R. Bloem, David A. Grimes, Jennifer G. Goldman, Jennifer L. McGinley, Joan Gardner, Maria Elisa Pimentel Piemonte, Nabila Dahodwala, Laura Brennan, Robert Iansek, Norbert Kovács, Sotirios A. Parashos, Ariela Hilel, Roopa Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersInternational Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisConstruct validityPsychologyHealth careCompetence (human resources)Structural equation modelingPsychometricsIntegrated careClinical psychologySocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Integrated care is essential for improving the management and health outcomes for people with Parkinson's disease (PD); reliable and objective measures of care integration are few. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care Measurement Tool (RMIC-MT, provider version) for healthcare professionals involved in PD care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered online to an international network representing 95 neurology centers across 41 countries and 588 healthcare providers. Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis extraction method was used to assess construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate model fit of the RMIC-MT provider version. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability. RESULTS: Overall, 371 care providers (62% response rate) participated in this study. No item had psychometric sensitivity problems. Nine factors (professional coordination, cultural competence, triple aims outcome, system coordination, clinical coordination, technical competence, community-centeredness, person-centeredness, and organizational coordination) with 42 items were determined by exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.76 (clinical coordination) to 0.94 (system coordination) and showed significant correlation among all items in the scale (>0.4), indicating good internal consistency reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis model passed most goodness-of-fit tests, thereby confirming the factor structure of nine categories with a total of 40 items. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence for the construct validity and other psychometric properties of the provider version of the RMIC-MT to measure integrated care in PD. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207