The use of the environmental scan in health services delivery research: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The environmental scan has been described as an important tool to inform decision-making on policy, planning and programme development in the healthcare sector. Despite the wide adoption of environmental scans, there is no consensus on a working definition within the health services delivery context and methodological guidance on the design and implementation of this approach is lacking in the literature. The objectives of this study are to map the extent, range and nature of evidence that describe the definitions, characteristics, conceptualisations, theoretical underpinnings, study limitations and other features of the environmental scan in the health services delivery literature and to propose a working definition specific to this context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a scoping review based on the methodology outlined by Khalil and colleagues. A comprehensive search strategy was developed by experienced health science librarians in consultation with the research team. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) was completed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria from seven electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (CBCA), CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The grey literature and reference lists of included articles will also be searched. The data will be analysed and presented in tabular format, and will include a descriptive numerical summary as well as a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol provides an audit trail for a scoping review that will advance understanding about the environmental scan and its application in the health services delivery context. The review will propose a working definition and will inform future research to explore the development of a conceptual framework in this context. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. The scoping review does not require ethics approval.
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 | 0.235 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.022 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".