MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920833757 · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0948-1

Inappropriateness of health care in Canada: a systematic review protocol

2019· review· en· W2920833757 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janet E. Squires, Ian D. Graham, Doris Grinspun, John N. Lavis, France Légaré, Robert S. Bell, Stephen Bornstein, Susan Brien, Mark Dobrow, Megan Greenough, Carole A. Estabrooks, Michael Hillmer, Tanya Horsley, Alan Katz, Christina M. Krause, Wendy Levinson, Adrian R. Levy, Michelina Mancuso, Alies Maybee, Steve Morgan, Letitia Nadalin Penno, Andrew Neuner, Tamara Rader, Janet Roberts, Gary Teare, Joshua Tepper, Amanda Vandyk, Denise Widmeyer, Michael G. Wilson, Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Patient Safety InstituteAlberta Health ServicesCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthCanadore CollegeUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaManitoba HealthGovernment of New BrunswickOttawa HospitalNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchBC Innovation CouncilManitoba Institute for Patient SafetySaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilMinistry of Health and Long Term CareUniversity of AlbertaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityToronto Public HealthUniversity of TorontoMemorial University of NewfoundlandRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersFaculty of Nursing, University of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareDepartment of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of OttawaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Health careSystematic reviewFamily medicineMEDLINENursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. METHODS: We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. DISCUSSION: This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093495.

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)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.014
Bibliometrics0.0220.024
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.010

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 head0.725
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.106 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207