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 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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