Implementation strategies in emergency management of children: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavior change is not simple, and the introduction of guidelines or protocols does not mean that they will be followed. As such, implementation strategies are vital for the uptake and sustainability of changes in medical protocols. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children due to their unique physiological needs. In emergency departments (EDs), where timely decisions are often made, practice change requires thoughtful considerations regarding the best approaches to implementation. As there are many studies reporting on a wide variety of implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs, we aim to identify and map the characteristics of these studies. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to identify various implementation strategies in the emergency management of children using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley), and CINAHL (Ebsco), from inception to May 29, 2019, for implementation studies among the pediatric population (≤ 21 years) in a pediatric emergency setting. Two pairs of reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and extract the data. We will perform a descriptive, narrative analysis of the characteristics of the identified implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: We will present specific characteristics and outcome measures of all included studies in a tabular form. The results of this review are expected to help identify and characterize successful implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/h6jv2.
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 | 0.104 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.010 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".