Experiences and Reported Outcomes of Patients and Caregivers Enrolled in an Integrated Care Program for Thoracic Surgery: A Qualitative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health care delivery is often poorly coordinated and fragmented. Integrated care (IC) programs represent one solution to improving continuity of care. The aim of this study was to understand experiences and reported outcomes of patients and caregivers in an IC Program that coordinates hospital and home care for thoracic surgery. Methods: A process evaluation was undertaken using qualitative methods. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 patients and 8 caregivers who received IC for thoracic surgery and were discharged between June 2019 and April 2020. A phenomenological approach was used to understand and characterize patient and caregiver experiences. Thematic analysis began with a deductive approach complemented by an inductive approach. Results: Four major themes evolved from patient and caregiver interviews, including 1) coordination and timeliness of patient care facilitated by an IC lead; 2) the provision of person-centred care and relational continuity fostered feelings of partnership with patients and caregivers; 3) clear communication and one shared digital record increased informational continuity; and 4) impacts of IC on patient and caregiver outcomes. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers generally reported this IC Program met their health care needs, which may help inform how future IC programs are designed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".