Experiences of family members of patients treated with targeted temperature management post cardiac arrest: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the experiences of family members of patients who receive targeted temperature management following the return of spontaneous circulation after a cardiac arrest. INTRODUCTION: Since 2002, targeted temperature management has become an international standard of care for the preservation of neurological status for patients following a cardiac arrest and who remain comatose. During this process, survivors are placed into a mild hypothermic state with their body temperature maintained at 32°C to 36°C for a minimum of 24 hours. It is during this time that family members experience the uncertainty of whether their loved one will survive, or if any negative long-term sequelae will be experienced. While much is known about the physical application and management of targeted temperature management, less is known about the psychosocial aspects of this treatment. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative studies that address the experiences of family members of adult patients who have received targeted temperature management following a cardiac arrest. METHODS: CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science will be searched for relevant studies. Studies published in English and French from 2002 onward will be considered. Two reviewers will independently appraise studies and extract qualitative data using the JBI standardized critical appraisal and extraction instruments. Findings from the review will be categorized according to similarity in meaning, and categories subjected to a meta-aggregation to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020142942.
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 | 0.077 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".