MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906693162 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024588

Patient-centred care for addiction treatment: a scoping review protocol

2018· review· en· W2906693162 on OpenAlexafffund
Kirsten Marchand, Scott Beaumont, Jordan Westfall, Scott Macdonald, Scott Harrison, David C. Marsh, Martin T. Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo‐Joekes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLMedicineGrey literatureMEDLINEHealth careContext (archaeology)AddictionProtocol (science)Substance useNursingMedical educationAlternative medicinePsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders are chronic conditions that require a multidimensional treatment approach. Despite ongoing efforts to diversify such treatments, evidence continues to illuminate modest rates of treatment engagement and perceived barriers to treatment. Patient-centred care (PCC) is one approach that may strengthen the responsiveness of treatments for people with problematic substance use. The aim of this scoping review is to explore how the principles of PCC have been implemented and operationalised in healthcare settings for people with problematic substance use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review follows the iterative stages of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Both empirical (from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science) and grey literature references will be considered if they focused on populations with problematic substance use and described or measured PCC or one of its principles in a health-oriented context. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for references meeting title/abstract criteria. A descriptive overview, tabular and/or graphical summaries, and a directed content analysis will be carried out on extracted data. This scoping review has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/5swvd/). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will systematically examine the extent and nature of existing evidence of PCC in addiction research and clinical practice. Such evidence will contribute to the operationalisation of PCC for people with problematic substance use. A multidisciplinary team has been gathered to represent the needs of people with problematic substance use, healthcare providers and decision-makers. The team's knowledge users will be engaged throughout this review and will participate in dissemination activities (eg, workshops, presentations, publications, reports).

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1260.026

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207