MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902114893 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022778

Being there: protocol for a scoping review of the medical education literature on grief support training for medical professionals

2018· review· en· W2902114893 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Soklaridis, Genevieve Ferguson, Sarah Bonato, Riley Saikaly, Pamela J. Mosher

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health Network
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMedical Psychiatry AllianceCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)GriefMedical educationHealth professionalsAlternative medicineNursingPsychiatryHealth carePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Medical trainees and professionals do not perceive that they are adequately taught the skills to address issues of grief with their patients. Atypical grief responses can prolong suffering, interrupt normal activities and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Grief training can help physicians cope with feelings about and responses to suffering, loss and death in a way that improves both physician and patient/family wellness. This scoping review will describe the current landscape of grief training worldwide in medical school and residency and in continuing professional development in the disciplines of paediatrics, family medicine and psychiatry. The ultimate goal is to help physicians support patients experiencing grief. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study design has been adapted from Arksey and O'Malley's review methodology. We will work with an information specialist who will run searches in six multidisciplinary databases. To supplement the search, we will scan the reference lists of included studies. Two levels of screening will take place: a title and abstract review for articles that fit predefined criteria and a full-text review of articles that meet those criteria. To be included in the review, articles must report on grief training for medical residents and professionals in the fields of paediatrics, family medicine and psychiatry. Two investigators will review each article and extract data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this review. We plan to share the findings through national and international medical education conferences and to publish the results in a peer-reviewed academic journal. We have the support of several directors of medical education at our institution who are interested in the growing focus on humanism in medical education as a way of decreasing burnout among medical students, residents and faculty.

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)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1180.027

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207