MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2801405403 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021177

Measurement properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures: protocol for a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2801405403 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Harris, Claudia Sparti, Roman Scheurer, Tim Coombs, Jane Pirkis, Torleif Ruud, Steve Kisely, Ketil Hanssen‐Bauer, Johan Siqveland

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDepartment of Health and Aged Care, Australian GovernmentAustralian Government
KeywordsPsycINFOChecklistMEDLINEMedicineCochrane LibraryProtocol (science)Reliability (semiconductor)Systematic reviewInter-rater reliabilityMental healthCritical appraisalApplied psychologyFamily medicineMedical educationMeta-analysisPsychiatryPsychologyAlternative medicineRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) for adults, and equivalent measures for children and adolescents and older people, are widely used in clinical practice and research contexts to measure mental health and functional outcomes. Additional HoNOS measures have been developed for special populations and applications. Stakeholders require synthesised information about the measurement properties of these measures to assess whether they are fit for use with intended service settings and populations and to establish performance benchmarks. This planned systematic review will critically appraise evidence on the measurement properties of the HoNOS family of measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Journal articles meeting inclusion criteria will be identified via a search of seven electronic databases: MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, PsycINFO via APA PsycNET, Embase via Elsevier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCOhost, Web of Science via Thomson Reuters, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Variants of 'Health of the Nation Outcome Scales' or 'HoNOS' will be searched as text words. No restrictions will be placed on setting or language of publication. Reference lists of relevant studies and reviews will be scanned for additional eligible studies. Appraisal of reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability will be guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Feasibility/utility will be appraised using definitions and criteria derived from previous reviews. For reliability studies, we will also apply the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies to assess quality of reporting. Results will be synthesised narratively, separately for each measure, and by subgroup (eg, treatment setting, rater profession/experience or training) where possible. Meta-analyses will be undertaken where data are adequate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Outcomes will be disseminated to stakeholders via reports, journal articles and presentations at meetings and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057871.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.020
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.015

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 head0.601
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.073 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→