MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281755849 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059883

Community-based culturally tailored education programmes for black adults with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and stroke: a systematic review protocol of primary empirical studies

2022· review· en· W4281755849 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Fulton, Hardeep Singh, Oya Pakkal, Elizabeth Uleryk, Michelle Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSinai Health SystemMarch of Dimes CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersMarch of Dimes CanadaMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEData extractionStroke (engine)DiseaseInclusion (mineral)GerontologyHealth careFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic conditions and stroke disproportionately affect black adults in communities all around the world partly due to patterns of systemic racism, disparities in care, and lack of resources. Culturally tailored programmes can potentially meet the needs of the communities they serve, including black adults who may experience reduced access to postacute services. To address unequal care received by black communities, a shift to community-based programmes that deliver culturally tailored programmes may give an alternative to a healthcare model which reinforces health inequities. The objectives of this review are to: (1) synthesise key programme characteristics and outcomes of culturally tailored community-based (CBCT) programmes that are designed to improve health outcomes in black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke and (2) identify which of the five categories of culturally appropriate programmes from Kreuter and colleagues have been used to implement CBCT programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review that will search Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases to identify studies of CBCT programmes for black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke between 2000 and 2021. Two reviewers will assess each study based on the inclusion criteria and any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a customised data extraction form to identify programme characteristics and the strategies used to develop culturally appropriate programmes. AMSTAR will be used to evaluate the articles included in the study. The aggregated data will be presented through textual descriptions of programme characteristics and outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review protocol does not require ethics approval without the inclusion of human participants and will use studies that have previously obtained informed consent. The systematic review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and used to inform future research led by JF and HS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021245772.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.021
Bibliometrics0.0220.020
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.006

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCultural Competency in Health CareFrench-language works237,207