MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404257252 · doi:10.2196/64575

Transitional Care Support for Medicaid-Insured Patients With Serious Mental Illness: Protocol for a Type I Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4404257252 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Margo Brooks Carthon, Heather Brom, Kelvin Amenyedor, Michael O. Harhay, Jacqueline Nikpour, Karen B. Lasater, Daniela Golinelli, Pamela Z. Cacchione, Amanda P Bettencourt

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)MedicaidMedicineMental illnessMental healthCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Physical therapyNursingPsychiatryHealth careComputer scienceAlternative medicineComputer networkSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People diagnosed with a co-occurring serious mental illness (SMI; ie, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia) but hospitalized for a nonpsychiatric condition experience higher rates of readmissions and other adverse outcomes, in part due to poorly coordinated care transitions. Current hospital-to-home transitional care programs lack a focus on the integrated social, medical, and mental health needs of these patients. The Thrive clinical pathway provides transitional care support for patients insured by Medicaid with multiple chronic conditions by focusing on posthospitalization medical concerns and the social determinants of health. This study seeks to evaluate an adapted version of Thrive that also meets the needs of patients with co-occurring SMI discharged from a nonpsychiatric hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) engage staff and community advisors in participatory implementation processes to adapt the Thrive clinical pathway for all Medicaid-insured patients, including those with SMI; (2) examine utilization outcomes (ie, Thrive referral, readmission, emergency department [ED], primary, and specialty care visits) for Medicaid-insured individuals with and without SMI who receive Thrive compared with usual care; and (3) evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-benefit of an adapted Thrive clinical pathway that is tailored for Medicaid-insured patients with co-occurring SMI. METHODS: This study will use a prospective, type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial design. We will randomize the initiation of Thrive referrals at the unit level. Data collection will occur over 24 months. Inclusion criteria for Thrive referral include individuals who (1) are Medicaid insured, dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, or Medicaid eligible; (2) reside in Philadelphia; (3) are admitted for a medical diagnosis for over 24 hours at the study hospital; (4) are planned for discharge to home; (5) agree to receive home care services; and (6) are aged ≥18 years. Primary analyses will use a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model to evaluate readmission and ED utilization, comparing those with and without SMI who receive Thrive to those with and without SMI who receive usual care. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, analyses will be conducted simultaneously for the survey and interview data of patients, clinicians, and health care system leaders. The cost of Thrive will be calculated from budget monitoring data for the research budget, the cost of staff time, and average Medicaid facility fee payments. RESULTS: This research project was funded in October 2023. Data collection will occur from April 2024 through December 2025. Results are anticipated to be published in 2025-2027. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that patients with and without co-occurring SMI will benefit from the adapted Thrive clinical pathway. We also anticipate the adapted version of Thrive to be deemed feasible, acceptable, and appropriate by patients, clinicians, and health system leaders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06203509; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06203509. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/64575.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.009

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.447 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→