Did a digital quality of life (QOL) assessment and practice support system in home health care improve the QOL of older adults living with life-limiting conditions and of their family caregivers? A mixed-methods pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to improve the quality of life (QOL) of homecare patients (≥ 55 years of age) who had chronic life-limiting conditions and that of their family caregivers by making QOL assessment data available via a digital QOL and practice support system (QPSS). We hypothesized that access to QPSS data in home health care would result in improved QOL for patients or their family caregivers. We further sought to understand how to integrate the use of QOL information into home health care. Our mixed-methods study, including a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (PrCT; registered at ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02940951), was conducted with nine home healthcare teams in Canadian urban areas. The qualitative research included focus groups and interviews with home healthcare teams (N = 118) to determine how to integrate the QPSS into their practice. Participating homecare patients were assigned to an intervention group (N = 166), where home healthcare teams had access to patients' and their family caregivers' QOL data via the QPSS, or a usual care group (N = 165). Where possible, one family caregiver per patient was recruited (intervention N = 62; usual care N = 51). Primary outcomes, measured every two months for one year, were patients' and family caregivers' QOL trajectories. Longitudinal structural equation models were used to compare the trajectories. The home healthcare teams preferred to have QOL scores presented as tables and graphs, with family caregivers' data linked to each patient. Despite the enthusiasm expressed by the home healthcare teams, and efforts to satisfy their preferences, they infrequently accessed the QOL information. While we observed substantial individual-level variability in patients' and family caregivers' QOL trajectories, the average trajectories for the PrCT groups were similar. Making QOL assessment data available via a digital platform may not be sufficient to achieve measurable improvements for patients and family caregivers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".