Examining the ability of the interRAI communication collaborative action plan to identify individuals with sensory challenges: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current study evaluated the performance of the interRAI communication collaborative action plan (CAP) to flag individuals with sensory impairments who could benefit from intervention. Investigators also examined how the CAP can help facilitate client-centered care planning and service delivery by exploring three unique case studies. Method: This retrospective cohort study utilized secondary data collected using the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC) across Canada. The sample included individuals aged 65 years or older who had two RAI-HC assessments completed between 2008 and 2020 (n=508,856). At time 1, individuals were categorized into three mutually exclusive groups based on their CAP triggering level: not triggered, triggered to facilitate improvement, or triggered to prevent decline. The three groups were compared across demographic characteristics, sensory impairments, cognitive challenges, and disease diagnoses. Transitions between triggering levels from time 1 and time 2 were analyzed using Sankey diagrams. Three case studies were examined to identify the reasons why someone may no longer trigger on the CAP at time 2. Results: The median time between an individual's intake and most recent assessment was 21 months (standard deviation=24.7 months). The majority of individuals did not trigger on the CAP at time 1 (77.7 %; n=395,309), while 9.5 % (n=48,263) triggered to facilitate improvement and 12.5 % (n=65,284) triggered to prevent decline. For each of the sensory impairments, the majority of individuals were more likely to fall into the triggered to facilitate improvement group. Conclusions: The communication CAP was robust in flagging individuals with sensory impairments as these individuals are more likely to fall into the triggered to facilitate improvement group. The three case studies highlight the importance of assessing all aspects of communication (e.g., cognitive, and sensory challenges, receptive and expressive communication), as they are all necessary components when considering decision-support tools and next steps.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".