MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410087916 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322138

Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators to implementing a warning signs intervention for older rural-dwelling medical patients at risk for hospital readmission

2025· article· en· W4410087916 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mary Fox, Jeffrey I. Butler, Adam M. B. Day, Evelyne Durocher, Sherry Dahlke, Mark W. Skinner, Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia, Janet Yamada, Ilo‐Katryn Maimets

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoTrent UniversityUniversity of AlbertaYork UniversityNOSM UniversityMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth careFocus groupIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)NursingMedicinePsychological interventionQualitative researchHealth professionalsFamily medicinePsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Prior research has identified that older rural patients and their families view preparation for detecting and responding to worsening health after a hospital stay as their most pressing unmet need, and perceive an evidence-based warning signs intervention that prepares them to do so as highly likely to meet this need. Yet, little is known about healthcare professionals' perspectives about potential barriers and facilitators to implementing warning signs interventions, especially in rural communities. AIM: This study aimed to identify potential barriers and facilitators to healthcare professionals' provision of a warning signs intervention in rural communities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we examined healthcare professionals' perspectives on potential barriers and facilitators to providing a warning signs intervention. A purposive, criterion-based sample of healthcare professionals, stratified by professional designation (three strata - nurses, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals) who provide health care to rural dwellers in Ontario, Canada participated in semi-structured telephone focus-group discussions or 1:1 interviews on barriers and facilitators to delivering the intervention. Data were analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven healthcare professionals participated in focus groups and 15 in 1:1 interviews for a total of 42 healthcare professionals. Analysis by healthcare professional stratum revealed nine categories of barriers and facilitators: material resources; human resources; healthcare professional communication; healthcare professional knowledge and skill; healthcare professional buy-in; context of rural practice; patient- and family-specific characteristics; risks and liabilities; and timing of intervention delivery. Seven of these categories converged across healthcare professional strata. However, the reasons why different healthcare professional strata perceived the categories as important, and the ways in which they saw them functioning as barriers and facilitators, varied. Our findings shed light on barriers and facilitators that should be considered to ensure successful implementation of the intervention in rural communities. DISCUSSION: This study adds to the limited research on rural healthcare professionals' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to delivering a warning signs intervention.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→