MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291913396 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00283

Outcomes associated with family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4291913396 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Fakhory, Laurie A. Lee, Jamie A. Seabrook, Molly Ryan, L. M. Miller, Jennifer Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityChildren’s Health Research InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illMedicinePediatric intensive care unitIntensive care medicineProtocol (science)Intensive care unitCritical illnessAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify the outcomes of family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) that have been reported in the literature. INTRODUCTION: PICU admission is traumatic for critically ill children and their family members, and family presence may alleviate negative outcomes. Family presence may change with family member, patient, health care provider, and institutional circumstances. Prior to designing studies to assess the outcomes of family presence at the bedside, or to conducting a systematic review of the literature, a scoping review is needed to systematically identify and map the outcomes for stakeholders. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include literature addressing outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU on the patient, family members, and health care providers. Emotional, social, psychological, and physiological outcomes will be considered, including outcomes on the provision of PICU care. METHODS: A systematic search will be undertaken across four databases and several sources of gray literature. The review will not be restricted by language, and will be limited to sources published after 1960. The search strategy was designed using text words from titles and abstracts of relevant studies. Title and abstract screening, followed by full text assessment of sources against inclusion criteria, will be completed in duplicate. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the study team. Data will be presented in tabular format to address findings related to the review objectives.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.300
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.300
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207