Exploring the poststroke experiences and unmet needs of South Asian communities in high-income countries: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: South Asian groups experience a higher burden of stroke and poorer functional outcomes after stroke than their White counterparts. However, within the stroke literature, there has been little focus on the unique poststroke needs of the South Asian community and opportunities for community-based services to address these needs. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current knowledge base related to the experiences and needs, including unmet needs of people living with stroke and their caregivers from South Asian communities living in high-income countries? AIMS: This is a protocol for a review that intends to synthesise existing studies of the poststroke experiences and needs of individuals from South Asian communities to uncover opportunities for community-based resources to address these needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review methodology will be guided by modified Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Joanna Briggs Institute frameworks. A search on OVID Medline, OVID Embase, OVID PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Global Index Medicus will be conducted to synthesise existing peer-reviewed literature (all study designs). Grey literature will be searched through detailed hand searching. Literature focusing on the poststroke experiences and needs of South Asian groups impacted by stroke residing in high-income countries will be included. Study descriptors will be extracted (eg, study location, type, methodology). Data will be analysed descriptively and thematically. Team meetings will provide opportunities for peer debriefing, thereby enhancing analytic rigour. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings will enhance knowledge of the poststroke experiences and needs of South Asian communities living in high-income countries and identify actionable opportunities for community-based resources to address needs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this scoping review protocol. Community-based organisations will be consulted to provide insights into the analysis and assist with dissemination. Dissemination of findings will also occur through a publication and academic presentations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.114 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.014 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".