MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206647821 · doi:10.1177/16094069211048600

What are the Care Needs of Families Experiencing Cardiac Arrest Care? A Survivor and Family-Performed Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-Synthesis Protocol

2021· article· en· W3206647821 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Douma, Timothy A.D. Graham, Allison Bone, Samina Ali, Liz Dennett, Peter G. Brindley, Thilo Kroll, Kate Frazer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOCritical appraisalQualitative researchThematic analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryPsychologyGrey literatureScopusMedicineNursingMedical educationPsychological interventionMeta-analysisAlternative medicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sudden cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death. Family members can be deeply impacted by sudden loss or uncertainty about survivor outcomes. The objective of this systematic review will be to identify, appraise, and meta-synthesize qualitative evidence regarding family care-needs when experiencing cardiac arrest. Methods: This systematic review of qualitative studies and meta-synthesis will be conducted by multidisciplinary researchers in partnership with patient and family partners who have lived-experience of cardiac arrest. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Theses and Dissertations Global, SocIndex, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We will include qualitative research describing the experience and care needs of family members. We will also search reference lists, conduct forward citation searches, and contact content experts. We will assess the methodological quality of included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Two team members will independently review studies, extract data, and assess methodological quality. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. We will use thematic framework analysis to analyze and synthesize narrative data, after which the review team and stakeholders discuss the findings and make any necessary changes. Our thematic synthesis will follow three steps: (i) initial coding and grouping of codes, (ii) formation of descriptive themes, and (iii) transcending the data to form novel insights and theories (analytical themes). The review will be reported in accordance with the ENTREQ and GRIPP2 guidelines. We will apply the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative (CERQual) research to assess the robustness of our findings. Review Registration: This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42021236431 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fxp5g .

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)0.197
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1970.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.019
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.008

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207