A Scoping Review of Interventions Using an interRAI Information System to Guide Care Management and Assess Intervention Efficacy in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
interRAI instruments consist of clinical information systems able to support integrated care. Through a scoping review, we describe how interRAI instruments are used: (1) as interventions (implementation category) and (2) to evaluate interventions (efficacy category) in older adults. In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR framework, we searched 6 databases and conducted dual-independent screening, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction followed an identical procedure. The review yielded 64 manuscripts, including 43 and 21 categorized as studies of efficacy or implementation, respectively. Findings indicate that interRAI systems are consistently utilized to evaluate or enhance participant-centred outcomes across diverse healthcare settings in 17 countries, with a particular emphasis on home and long-term care. interRAI is a versatile system with the potential to form the foundation of an integrated clinical information system. This review provides a basis for future research testing novel intervention strategies with interRAI systems.
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 | 0.096 | 0.264 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".