MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221036396 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056598

Record linkage studies of drug-related deaths among former adult prisoners who have been released to the community: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4221036396 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J Cooper, Ifeoma N. Onyeka, Dermot O’Reilly, Richard Kirk, Michael Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilPublic Health AgencyQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Record linkageLinkage (software)EpidemiologyDrugPublic healthFamily medicineGerontologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePopulationGeneticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Prisoners often have a complex mix of health and care needs including needs relating to mental and physical ill-health conditions. In addition, substance use disorders are common in prisoners. The transition between prison and community poses risks in terms of a disruption to treatment and care and a deterioration in health. Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of drug-related deaths among former prisoners during the first weeks following release from custody. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an up-to-date account of evidence from record linkage studies about drug-related deaths among former adult prisoners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a scoping review. The framework for conducting scoping reviews by Arksey and O'Malley, in addition to the methodology and guidance developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the JBI Collaboration will be followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Web of Science will be searched for studies from 2011 to 2021 using search terms relating to 'mortality', 'drugs' and 'ex-prisoner'. A preliminary search in MEDLINE identified at least 473 potentially eligible papers. Two authors will independently screen all titles and abstracts for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There will be no geographical restrictions but non-English language papers will be excluded. Data will be extracted using a piloted customised charting form and the findings will be mapped (guided by the population, concept and context inclusion criteria) and grouped by main conceptual categories (including methodology, key findings and gaps in the research). DISCUSSION, ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will identify, map and summarise publicly available sources of research and therefore does not require ethical approval. The results will inform our empirical investigation of ex-prisoner mortality as well as being shared with key stakeholders, disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

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)0.174
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1740.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0270.024
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0150.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.014

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207