MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220892697 · doi:10.1111/hex.13461

Centredness in health care: A systematic overview of reviews

2022· review· en· W4220892697 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityProvidence Health CareCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLInclusion (mineral)ScopusHealth careMEDLINESystematic reviewVariety (cybernetics)SafeguardingPsychologyField (mathematics)Medical educationNursingMedicineComputer sciencePsychological interventionSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of effective, evidence-based approaches to centredness in health care is hindered by the fact that research results are not easily accessible. This is partly due to the large volume of publications available and because the field is closely linked to and in some ways encompasses adjoining fields of research, for example, shared decision making and narrative medicine. In an attempt to survey the field of centredness in health care, a systematic overview of reviews was conducted with the purpose of illuminating how centredness in health care is presented in current reviews. METHODS: Searches for relevant reviews were conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, PsychINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE using terms connected to centredness in health care. Filters specific to review studies of all types and for inclusion of only English language results as well as a time frame of January 2017-December 2018, were applied. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 3697 unique reviews, of which 31 were included in the study. The synthesis of the results from the 31 reviews identified three interrelated main themes: Attributes of centredness (what centredness is), Translation from theory into practice (how centredness is done) and Evaluation of effects (possible ways of measuring effects of centredness). Three main attributes of centeredness found were: being unique, being heard and shared responsibility. Aspects involved in translating theory into practice were sufficient prerequisites, strategies for action and tools used in safeguarding practice. Further, a variety and breadth of measures of effects were found in the included reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our synthesis demonstrates that current synthesized research literature on centredness in health care is broad, as it focuses both on explorations of the conceptual basis and the practice, as well as measures of effects. This study provides an understanding of the commonalities identified in the reviews on centredness in healthcare overall, ranging from theory to practice and from practice to evaluation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient representatives were involved during the initiation of the project and in decisions about its focus, although no patient or public representatives made direct contributions to the review process.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.604
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.036 · 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