Respite care for children and youth with complex care needs and their families: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and characterize interventions, programs or models used to deliver respite care services to children and youth with complex care needs and their families. INTRODUCTION: Many children with complex chronic conditions require multifaceted home management plans to address their medical, social and emotional needs. The provision of this care often falls on the parents or primary guardians. Respite care is one strategy to provide families with a break from the demands of caring for a child with complex care needs; however, families commonly face barriers to obtaining respite care services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider papers that include children and youth (0-25 years of age, in any location, with complex care needs, medical complexity or complex chronic conditions) and their families. Any interventions, programs or models aimed at delivering respite care services to this population will be included. Studies focusing on support provided at the end of life will be excluded. Only studies published in English will be included. No date limits will be set. METHODS: A search will be conducted in five databases, as well as multiple sources of unpublished literature. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles and index terms will be used to develop a full search strategy. All potentially relevant papers will be retrieved in full. A pre-defined data extraction tool developed by the reviewers will be used, and extracted data will be presented in tabular form accompanied by a narrative summary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".