MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408209008 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21997-w

Effects of the Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) program on the health behaviours of older adults residing in social housing: secondary outcomes of a cluster-randomized trial

2025· article· en· W4408209008 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jasdeep Brar, Leena AlShenaiber, Jasmine Dzerounian, Melissa Pirrie, Ricardo Angeles, Francine Marzanek, Gina Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCluster randomised controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Public healthCommunity healthHealth promotionPopulationBiostatisticsDescriptive statisticsGerontologyFamily medicineHealth careEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community-dwelling, low-income older adults who reside in social housing are a vulnerable population with high rates of poor health behaviours that contribute to chronic health conditions and adverse health outcomes. This study investigates the impact of the Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic), a chronic disease prevention, management, and health promotion program, on the health behaviours of this population. METHODS: An open-label, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial with parallel intervention and control groups was conducted for one-year within 30 social housing buildings in Ontario, Canada. Eligible buildings were required to have a postal code not shared with other addresses, a majority of tenants aged 55 years or older, at least 50 units, and a similar building available for matching. Buildings were paired and randomized to either intervention (CP@clinic program) or control (usual care) groups. The CP@clinic program was conducted in the common spaces of the intervention buildings and consisted of weekly drop-in sessions facilitated by trained community paramedics. Older adults met one-on-one with community paramedics who conducted evidence-based risk assessments, made referrals to community and healthcare resources, provided health education, and reported health assessment results back to family physicians. Pre- and post-intervention surveys were conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics and health behaviours. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare individual-level change in health behaviours between intervention and control groups. RESULTS: From the 15 intervention and 15 control buildings, 656 participants completed either the pre- and/or post-intervention survey; the mean age was 72.1 (SD 8.7) years, 75.6% were female, 91.6% were not married, 89% were white, 68.4% obtained a high school education or less, and 90% lived alone. After the intervention, the individual-level consumption of weekly fruit and vegetables and time spent watching TV improved significantly (p < 0.05) for the intervention group compared to the control group (z-scores = -2.467 and -2.194, respectively). The change in consumption of carbohydrate/grains increased significantly for the intervention group compared to the control group (z-score -2.023, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The CP@clinic program is an innovative wellness program that had a significant impact in changing health behaviours, especially in weekly fruit and vegetable consumption, among a vulnerable older adult population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02152891, registered June 6, 2014.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→