The Integration of Interlinkages Between Nature and Human Health in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International overview reports and the majority of scientific publications on interlinkages between nature and human health (NHI) do not seem to focus on the role of the health care sector. Primary health care (PHC) is often the first point of contact people have with the health care system and provides comprehensive, accessible, and community-based care that meets the health needs of individuals throughout their life. PHC is a vital backbone for linking knowledge and practice within the organization of health care. This scoping review aims to focus on the potential role of PHC in relation to NHI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this protocol is to present the method used to scope international overview reports and scientific publications on what is mentioned on the integration of NHI in PHC. METHODS: The international overview reports have been screened for keywords relating to PHC. We developed a specific search strategy to scope scientific literature on NHI in relation to PHC. The scientific literature search ran in Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed from inception to May 2017. The scientific publications are screened by 2 independent reviewers, which will result in a list of relevant publications that meet eligibility and inclusion criteria. RESULTS: On the basis of a first screen on the title of the first 200 results in both search engines, we decided to restrict to WOS. First insights in the international overview reports and the quantitative overview of the results in WOS give a first impression of a missing link between NHI and PHC. The findings are expected to identify knowledge gaps in the translation of evidence on NHI in PHC practices and the role of PHC regarding the application of that evidence in health care practice. CONCLUSIONS: This is, to our knowledge, the first study that seeks to relate existing knowledge on NHI to PHC. The presentation of our method through this protocol allows researchers to build upon and improve our work in future research on the practical implementation of NIH. The findings of the scoping review are expected to guide future scientific research, international policy directives, and PHC workers to fill the gaps in the integration of NHI in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12510.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.150 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".