MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213522451 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00147

Effectiveness of different health delivery agents of parenting stimulation interventions on child development outcomes among children aged 0 to 36 months: a systematic review protocol

2021· article· en· W3213522451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Psychological interventionChild developmentChild healthSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of different health delivery agents of parenting stimulation interventions versus usual care, no intervention, or a different type of delivery agent on child development outcomes among children aged 0 to 36 months. INTRODUCTION: Stimulation interventions vary in terms of implementation. While some interventions are delivered by professionals, most are delivered by non-professionals. Several prior systematic reviews on this topic have been conducted; however, no known study has evaluated the effectiveness of stimulation interventions on child development by type of delivery agent. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider randomized controlled trials assessing parenting stimulation interventions delivered by different health delivery agents. These will be compared to usual care, no intervention, or a different delivery agent, targeted at caregiver-child dyads of children aged 0 to 36 months. The outcomes will include motor, language, cognitive, and socio-emotional development. The review will exclude studies including children with specific characteristics, interventions that do not focus on parenting, and protocols of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: The review will include both published and unpublished studies. The key information sources to be searched are: MEDLINE, APA (PsycNet), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, VHL Regional Portal, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Theses Canada Portal, and Library and Archives Canada. Studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese will be included. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be conducted using standardized tools. Quantitative data, where possible, will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis, or if statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be reported narratively. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021245245.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.017
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207