MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484112943 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011945

Hearing and vision screening tools for long-term care residents with dementia: protocol for a scoping review

2016· review· en· W2484112943 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine S. McGilton, Fiona Höbler, Jennifer L. Campos, Kate Dupuis, Tammy Labreche, Dawn M. Guthrie, Jonathan Jarry, Gurjit Singh, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de MontréalUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier UniversityBaycrest HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersAlzheimer Society Research ProgramAlzheimer Society
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineDementiaMEDLINEGrey literatureMultidisciplinary approachCompetence (human resources)Health careNursingMedical educationDiseasePsychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Hearing and vision loss among long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia frequently goes unnoticed and untreated. Despite negative consequences for these residents, there is little information available about their sensory abilities and care assessments and practices seldom take these abilities or accessibility needs into account. Without adequate knowledge regarding such sensory loss, it is difficult for LTC staff to determine the level of an individual's residual basic competence for communication and independent functioning. We will conduct a scoping review to identify the screening measures used in research and clinical contexts that test hearing and vision in adults aged over 65 years with dementia, aiming to: (1) provide an overview of hearing and vision screening in older adults with dementia; and (2) evaluate the sensibility of the screening tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework by Arksey and O'Malley and furthered by methodological enhancements from cited researchers. We will conduct electronic database searches in CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We will also carry out a 'grey literature' search for studies or materials not formally published, both online and through interview discussions with healthcare professionals and research clinicians working in the field. Our aim is to find new and existing hearing and vision screening measures used in research and by clinical professionals of optometry and audiology. Abstracts will be independently reviewed twice for acceptance by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and research clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will inform health professionals working with this growing population. With the review findings, we aim to develop a toolkit and an algorithmic process to select the most appropriate hearing and vision screening assessments for LTC residents with dementia that will facilitate accurate testing and can inform care planning, thereby improving residents' quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.327
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207