MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404148744 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00183

Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4404148744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCardiff UniversitySwansea Bay University Health Board
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Value (mathematics)Primary careOccupational therapyPsychologyMedicineNursingPhysical therapyFamily medicineComputer scienceMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care. INTRODUCTION: Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded. METHODS: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care. RESULTS: From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a variety of methods. The aim of reducing the per capita cost of health care was least represented in the literature. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights a multifaceted but inconsistent approach to measuring the outcomes of occupational therapy provided in primary care. This has implications for establishing effectiveness and capturing data at scale to assist with wider planning of care and to enable the profession to demonstrate its contribution to value-based health care. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hnaq4/.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207