Multidisciplinary Care in a Public University Family Medicine Group in Québec (Canada): Data on Patients’ Follow-Up and Cardiometabolic Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Generating real-world data on the efficacy of multidisciplinary care in cardiometabolic risk management is essential to ensure that guidelines are both applicable and effective, especially in public healthcare settings, where organizational structures may impede healthcare professionals’ agility. This study aimed to generate data on patient follow-up and cardiometabolic risk management during the early years of a public university family medicine group in Québec (Canada) that provides multidisciplinary care to adults with cardiometabolic conditions, in order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of its care model. Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal study. Patients treated at the clinic from 31 January 2020 (clinic opening) to 8 May 2024 (n = 96) were invited to consent to the use of their medical data for research. Results: A total of 52 patients consented and were included in the study. Upon entry at the clinic, >90% of patients had anthropometry and blood pressure (BP) measured, but plasma glucose and lipids were assessed among 50% and 79% of patients, respectively. A total of 36 patients completed the personalized multidisciplinary care program. No evidence of associations between the total number of appointments or appointments with the registered dietitian specifically with changes in BMI, waist circumference, and BP was found. However, each pharmaceutical intervention was associated with a −0.51 cm (95%CI: −1.03, 0.02; p = 0.06) change in waist circumference and a −1.49 mm Hg (95%CI: −2.56, −0.43, p = 0.01) change in diastolic BP. Conclusions: These data highlight the challenges of implementing a research-oriented clinic within Québec’s public healthcare system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".