Perceived value and benefits of the Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) programme: a descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Community Paramedicine (CP) is increasingly being used to provide chronic disease management for vulnerable populations in the community. CP@clinic took place in social housing buildings to support cardiovascular health and diabetes management for older adults. The purpose of this study was to examine participant perceptions of their experience with CP@clinic as well as potential ongoing programme benefits. DESIGN: This descriptive qualitative study used focus groups to understand resident experiences of the CP@clinic programme. Groups were facilitated by experienced moderators using a semistructured guide. An inductive coding approach was used with at least two researchers taking part in each step of the analysis process. SETTING: Community-based social housing buildings in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one participants from four CP@clinic sites took part in a focus group. Convenience sampling was used with anyone having taken part in a CP@clinic session being eligible to attend the focus group. RESULTS: Analysis yielded six themes across two broad areas: timely access to health information and services, support to achieve personal health goals, better understanding of healthcare system (Personal Benefits); and sense of community, comfortable and familiar place to talk about health, facilitated communication between healthcare professionals (Programme Structure). Participants experienced discernible health changes that motivated their participation. CP@clinic was viewed as a programme that created connections within the building and outside of it. Participants were enthusiastic for the continuation of the programme and appreciated the consistent support to meet their health goals. CONCLUSIONS: CP@clinic was successful in creating a supportive and friendly environment to facilitate health behavioural changes. Ongoing implementation of CP@clinic would allow residents to continue to build their chronic disease management knowledge and skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration number: NCT02152891, Clinicaltrials.gov.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".