MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195364999 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00017

Coping experiences of young adults diagnosed with a chronic illness: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2021· article· en· W3195364999 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Wilson, Lori E. Weeks, Patricia Morris, Sarah Innocente, Melissa Rothfus

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)University of New BrunswickCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOCritical appraisalCoping (psychology)Qualitative researchGrey literaturePopulationMEDLINEPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to gain insight about the experience of emerging adults who are coping with a chronic illness diagnosis. INTRODUCTION: Receiving a chronic illness diagnosis is filled with challenges and changes to a person's life. Coping is not an easy or linear process, and is particularly complex for emerging adults. The emerging adult stage is important to consider, as this is a stage characterized by identity exploration, transition to adulthood, and future planning. A chronic illness diagnosis interrupts these processes and affects the coping process in emerging adults. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The population included will be persons between 18 and 25 years of age living in the community. Sources will focus on the experience of being diagnosed with a chronic illness, including its impacts on the individual's life. METHODS: This qualitative review will be conducted following JBI qualitative review methodology. An initial search was conducted in order to identify relevant articles on the topic. Databases to be searched include CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Nursing and Allied Health Database. A gray literature search will also be conducted. There will be no date or language limits on the search. The titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, followed by an assessment of the full-text articles. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion or in consultation with a third reviewer. Critical appraisal of included articles and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-aggregation of the articles will be completed and textually pooled in tabular format. Where that is not possible, results will be presented in a narrative format. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021224772.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207