74 Patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric hospital care in Canada: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The largest population of paediatric patients cared for in hospital are those with medical conditions managed in general paediatric inpatient units (GPIUs). Despite the large burden, there is a lack of high-quality research focused on the care of children and youth admitted to GPIUs. The Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network (PIRN) was launched in 2019 to generate evidence to improve the care and outcomes for hospitalized children in GPIUs. To help establish a future research agenda, PIRN brought together clinicians, youth, patients and caregivers to identify important clinical management questions about the care of children in hospital. Objectives To conduct a research priority setting study to identify the most important unanswered clinical management research questions about paediatric hospital care in GPIUs that are important to patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Design/Methods Established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methodology was utilized for this project, which was overseen by a Steering Group composed of patient partners, (youth, parents of patients) and clinicians (nurses, and paediatricians) (n=10), facilitated by a JLA Adviser. In phase 1, an online REDCap survey was administered to collect unanswered research questions regarding paediatric hospital care via 3 open-ended questions. Responses from the phase 1 survey went through a detailed evidence checking process. Subsequently, unanswered research questions were brought forward to a phase 2 interim prioritization online REDCap survey. A final list of top 10 unanswered research questions pertaining to paediatric hospital care was established at the final priority setting workshop. Results The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (e.g., hospital policy, communication, shared-decision making, health service delivery and health service management), and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, 4 questions had sufficient evidence, and 21 were submitted by only one respondent. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants. The top 16 questions – the top 10 from both patient partners (youth, parents of patients) and clinicians respectively – were presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized (Table 1). The top 10 questions focus on the care of special inpatient populations (e.g. children with medical complexity), communication, shared-decision making, support strategies, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents and families. Conclusion The top 10 unanswered questions on paediatric hospital care will help guide future research. PIRN will use these prioritized questions to generate scientific knowledge to improve the outcomes of hospitalized children and youth in GPIUs through the conduct of patient-oriented research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,171 | 0,113 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,032 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,019 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,032 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».