Synthesizing evidence regarding community-based volunteer facilitated programs supporting integrated care transitions from hospital to home: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Given the risks inherent in care transitions, it is imperative that patients discharged from hospital to home receive the integrated care services necessary to ensure that the transition is successful. Despite efforts by the health care sector to develop health system solutions to improve transitions, problems persist. Research on transitional support has predominantly focused on services delivered by health care professionals; the evidence for services provided by lay navigators or volunteers in supporting people transitioning from hospital to home has not been synthesized to guide practice, policy or future research. Aim This is a protocol for a scoping review that will examine the role and contributions of voluntary sector personnel and services to support transitions from hospital to home. Methods Using the well-established scoping review methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, a six-stage study is outlined (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results, and (6) providing consultation. The search strategy, designed by an information scientist, is applied to ten databases reflecting empirical and grey literature sources. A two-stage screening process will be used to determine eligibility of articles. To be included in the review, articles must report on a community-based program that engages volunteers in the provisions of services that support adults transitioning from hospital to home. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility, and data from eligible articles will be abstracted and charted using a standardized form. Extracted data will be analyzed using narrative and descriptive analyses. Research ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. Discussion This scoping review will map the available literature focused on the contributions of voluntary sector personnel and services to support transitions from hospital to home.
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 | 0.226 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.011 |
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".