MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039549345 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038682

End-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: protocol of a mixed-methods systematic review

2020· article· en· W3039549345 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Isabel González-González, Christine Schmucker, Julia Nothacker, Truc Sophia Nguyen, Maria-Sophie Brueckle, Jeanet W. Blom, Marjan van den Akker, Kristian Röttger, Odette Wegwarth, Tammy Hoffmann, Ferdinand M. Gerlach, Sharon E. Straus, Joerg J Meerpohl, Christiane Muth

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINECitation indexEnd-of-life careProtocol (science)Health careCochrane LibraryCitationSystematic reviewPopulationQualitative researchFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicinePalliative careSocial sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: End-of-life care is an essential task performed by most healthcare providers and often involves decision-making about how and where patients want to receive care. To provide decision support to healthcare professionals and patients in this difficult situation, we will systematically review a knowledge cluster of the end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity that we previously identified using an evidence map. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search for studies reporting end-of-life care preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2019. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date and language.Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility, extract data and describe evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, preference assessment method and end-of-life care elements that matter to patients (eg, life-sustaining treatments). Risk of bias/applicability of results will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Using a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, we will synthesise information narratively and, wherever possible, quantitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed systematic review, ethics approval is not required. Results from our research will be disseminated at relevant (inter-)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. Synthesising evidence on end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity will improve shared decision-making and satisfaction in this final period of life. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020151862.

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)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.020
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207