MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389615918 · doi:10.5195/ijt.2023.6583

Guiding Documents for Engaging with Remote Chronic Disease Management Programs as a Healthcare Provider: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4389615918 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Van Damme, Vanina Dal Bello‐Haas, Ayse Kuspinar, Patricia H. Strachan, Nicole Peters, Khang Nguyen, Greg Bolger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Telerehabilitation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData extractionMedicineGrey literatureHealth careWork (physics)Narrative reviewMedical educationComputer scienceMEDLINEIntensive care medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Chronic disease management programs (CDMP) that include education and exercise enhance outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Remote CDMP have the potential to provide convenient, cost-effective, and accessible options for individuals, but it is unclear how to best implement programs that include education and exercise. This review identified and synthesized resources for implementing remote CDMP programs that incorporate education and exercise. Methods: Peer-reviewed and grey literature were systematically searched from January 1998 to May 2022. Covidence software was used for screening and extraction. The data were synthesized and presented in a narrative and tabular format. Results: Six peer-reviewed manuscripts and six grey literature documents published between 2006-2022 were included. All resources described individual programs targeting various chronic conditions. Provider training, consent, participant screening, and safety considerations were identified. Conclusions: Guidelines for remote CFMP programs are lacking. Additional work is needed to design remote CDMP guidelines incorporating education and exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TelerehabilitationSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207