MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205846034 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055033

Exploring concepts of compassion in care home settings: a scoping review protocol

2021· review· en· W3205846034 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Evans, Liz Grant, Anne Birgitta Pessi, Laura Evans, Silja Voolma

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsMedicineCompassionProtocol (science)NursingHealth services researchPublic healthHealth careAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is widespread agreement that medical care without compassion cannot be patient-centred, but patients still routinely cite that they feel a lack of compassion in the care environment. There is a dearth of research on how compassion is experienced in a non-hospital setting such as a care home, not just by residents but by staff and other key stakeholders. This scoping review aims to determine the body of existing, published research that explicitly refers to compassion or empathy in the context of care homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the methodology described by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMAextension for scoping reviews guideline to adhere to an established methodological framework. Relevant publications will be searched on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EBM Reviews and PsycInfo databases. Peer-reviewed literature focusing on experiences of compassion or empathy in care home settings from the perspective of either staff, residents (or clients), family members or their combined perspectives will be included. We will focus on literature published from 2000 up to 1 November 2021, in English, Spanish, Portuguese Finnish and Estonian. The review process will consist of three stages: a title review to identify articles of interest, this will be followed by an abstract review and finally, a full-text review. These three stages will be conducted by two reviewers. Data will be extracted, collated and charted and a narrative synthesis of the results will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. This study supports the first part of a larger programme to understand the importance of technologies in care homes. The scoping review will examine data from publicly available documentation, reports and published papers. Dissemination will be achieved through engagement with stakeholder communities, and publishing results. Our team will include representatives from the different communities involved.

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)0.158
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1580.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0230.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.018

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 head0.496
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207