Effectiveness and Stakeholder Views of Community-Based Allied Health on Acute Care Utilization: A Mixed Methods Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esther Jie Tian,1 Priya Martin,2,* Lewis A Ingram,3 Saravana Kumar1,* 1Innovation, IMPlementation And Clinical Translation (IIMPACT in Health), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 2School of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia; 3Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Esther Jie Tian, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia, Tel +61 8 830 21300, Email jie.tian@mymail.unisa.edu.auAbstract: The aim of this mixed methods systematic review was to synthesize contemporary evidence on effectiveness of community-based allied health (AH) services on acute care utilizations and views from relevant stakeholders. An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42023437013]. Inclusion criteria were: (a) stand-alone interventions led by practitioners/graduates from one or more target AH professions (audiology, exercise physiology, diabetes educator, nutrition and dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, podiatry, psychology, social work, and speech pathology); (b) examined acute care utilization-related outcomes with/without perceptions of relevant stakeholders; and (c) published after 2010 and in English. Eligible studies were identified from: (a) bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, PsycINFO, CINAHL complete, and the Cochrane Library) (September 19, 2023); (b) online databases (ProQuest Central and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global) and theses repository (Trove) (September 20, 2023); (c) Google and Google Scholar (October 17– 18, 2023); and (d) citation searching. A modified version of McMaster Critical Appraisal Tools and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess methodological quality. Data synthesis was through convergent segregated approach. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. There were 67 included papers. The integrated quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrated mixed evidence, likely influenced by the heterogeneity of the evidence base, for the effectiveness of AH services on acute care utilizations. Patients and their carers were largely positive about these services, highlighting opportunities to build on these experiences. The certainty of evidence for patient-important outcomes was however “very low”, emphasizing cautious interpretation. The findings of this review shed light on the breadth and scope of AH in the community sector, and its potential impact on the acute sector. Further investment in, and ongoing research on, community-based AH can strengthen primary healthcare and relieve pressure on the acute sector.Keywords: allied health personnel, primary health care, community health services, hospitalization, hospital emergency service, length of stay
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 | 0.056 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".