Ethical and Quality of Care-Related Challenges of Digital Health Twins in Older Care Settings: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital health twins (DHTs) have been evolving with their diverse applications in medicine, specifically in older care settings, with the increasing demands of older adults. DHTs have already contributed to improving the quality of dementia and trauma care, cardiac treatment, and health care services for older individuals. Despite its many benefits, the optimum implementation of DHTs has faced several challenges associated with ethical issues, quality of care, management and leadership, and design considerations in older care settings. Since the need for such care is continuously rising and there is evident potential for DHTs to meet those needs, this review aims to map key concepts to address the gaps in the research knowledge to improve DHT implementation. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the problems encountered by older adults and care providers associated with the application of DHTs. The synthesis will collate the evidence of the issues associated with quality of care, the ethical implications of DHTs, and the strategies undertaken to overcome those challenges in older care settings. METHODS: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The published studies will be searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, JBI, and Web of Science, and the unpublished studies through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. Studies published in English from 2002 will be considered. This review will include studies of older individuals (aged 65 years or older) undergoing care delivery associated with DHTs and their respective care providers. The concept will include the application of the technology, and the context will involve studies based on the older care setting. A broad scope of evidence, including quantitative, qualitative, text and opinion studies, will be considered. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and then review the full text. Data will be extracted from the included studies using a data extraction tool developed for this study. RESULTS: The results will be presented in a PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram. A draft charting table will be developed as a data extraction tool. The results will be presented as a "map" of the data in a logical, diagrammatic, or tabular form in a descriptive format. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence synthesis is expected to uncover the shreds of evidence required to address the ethical and care quality-related challenges associated with applying DHTs. A synthesis of various strategies used to overcome identified challenges will provide more prospects for adopting them elsewhere and create a resource allocation model for older individuals. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51153.
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 | 0,126 | 0,115 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,051 | 0,009 |
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 ».