Passive Remote Monitoring Technologies’ Influence on Home Care Clients’ Ability to Stay Home: Multiprovincial Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Researchers in Nova Scotia and Ontario, Canada, implemented a passive remote monitoring (PRM) model of home care unique to their health system contexts. Each PRM model integrated tailored PRM devices (eg, motion sensors, cameras, and door alarms) into home care patients’ residences with the aim of linking patients, family and friend caregivers, and health care providers to support older adults’ aging in place. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to examine the use of PRM technologies in the home to support older adults’ safe aging in place and avoidance or delay of higher levels of care. METHODS This multiprovincial pragmatic randomized controlled trial examined how PRM technologies support older adults to safely remain in their home and avoid or delay admission to higher levels of care. Pairs of home care patients and their family and friend caregivers were recruited in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Participant pairs were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) standard home care (ie, control) or (2) standard home care plus study-provided PRM (ie, intervention). Participants provided their provincial health insurance numbers to link with provincial health administrative databases and identify if patients were admitted to higher levels of care after 1 year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the primary outcome in each province. RESULTS In total, 313 patient-caregiver pairs were recruited: 174 pairs in Ontario (intervention: n=60; control: n=114) and 139 pairs in Nova Scotia (intervention: n=45; control: n=94). Results indicate PRM was associated with a nonsignificant 30% reduction in risk of patients being admitted to higher levels of care in Ontario (hazard ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.4) and no reduction in risk in Nova Scotia (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% CI 0.3-3.7). Adjusting for patient sex had no impact on model estimates for either province. CONCLUSIONS Limitations related, in part, to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the effectiveness of the intervention. While our study did not yield statistically significant results (P=.30 and P=.90) regarding the effectiveness of the PRM model in prolonging home stays, the observed trends suggest that technology-assisted aging in place may be a valuable goal for older adults. Further study is required to understand if longer follow-up time allows more effects of PRM on patients’ avoidance of higher levels of care to be detected. CLINICALTRIAL ISRCTN ISRCTN79884651; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79884651 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/15027
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".