MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2964337684 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027534

Systematic review protocol for facilitators and barriers to integrating health services for traumatic brain injury and mental health or addictions

2019· article· en· W2964337684 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincy Chan, Danielle Toccalino, Angela Colantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineMental healthMEDLINEHealth careProtocol (science)Inclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewCochrane LibraryPoison controlGrey literaturePsychiatryNursingAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPsychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In the most populous province of Canada, one in five adults and one in six students report a lifetime history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). These individuals were also more likely to report elevated psychological distress and use illicit substances compared with those without TBI. The need for integrated health services has been recognised globally, yet efforts to develop more comprehensive and effective care for TBI and mental health and/or addictions (MHA) continue to be challenged by the siloing of the two systems. This protocol is for a systematic review that describes the current types of integrated care for TBI and MHA and identifies the barriers and facilitators to integrating healthcare for these populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will systematically search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertations & Theses Global. References of eligible articles will also be searched for additional relevant studies. The search strategy will include the use of text words and subject headings relevant to the concepts 'TBI,' 'substance abuse, gambling, or mental health,' 'integrated healthcare,' 'barriers and facilitators,' and 'healthcare access.' Two reviewers will independently screen all articles based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and perform quality assessment on eligible studies. A narrative synthesis will be conducted using the data abstracted by the two reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings from the systematic review will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at scientific meetings, and summarised for key stakeholders in the field of TBI and/or MHA. This protocol will form a systematic review that holds the potential to impact policy and planning in the development of integrated person-centred care for TBI and MHA and addresses a recognised gap in TBI care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108343.

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)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.020
Bibliometrics0.0200.020
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.015

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→