The Effectiveness of Collaborative Care Interventions for the Management of Patients With Multimorbidity: Protocol for a Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collaborative care interventions have been proposed as a promising strategy to support patients with multimorbidity. Despite this, the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions requires further evaluation. Existing systematic reviews describing the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions in multimorbidity management tend to focus on specific interventions, patient subgroups, and settings. This necessitates a comprehensive review that will provide an overview of the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions for adult patients with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to systematically assess the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions in comparison to usual care concerning health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, and mortality among adult patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating collaborative care interventions designed for adult patients (18 years and older) with multimorbidity compared with usual care will be considered for inclusion in this review. HRQoL will be the primary outcome. Mortality and mental health outcomes such as rating scales for anxiety and depression will serve as secondary outcomes. The systematic search will be conducted in the CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases. Additional reference and citation searches will be performed in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. Data extraction will be comprehensive and include information about participant characteristics, study design, intervention details, and main outcomes. Included studies will be assessed for limitations according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect size. Meta-regression or subgroup analysis will be undertaken to explore if certain factors can explain the variation in effect between studies, if feasible. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The preliminary literature search was performed on February 16, 2024, and yielded 5255 unique records. A follow-up search will be performed across all databases before submission. The findings will be presented in forest plots, a summary of findings table, and in narrative format. This systematic review is expected to be completed by late 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide an overview of pooled estimates of treatment effects across HRQoL, mental health, and mortality from randomized controlled trials evaluating collaborative care interventions for adults with multimorbidity. Furthermore, the intention is to clarify the participant, intervention, or study characteristics that may influence the effect of the interventions. This review is expected to provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and other decision-makers about the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions targeting adult patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42024512554; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=512554. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58296.
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 | 0.073 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.034 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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".