Protocol for an integrative review: patient and families’ perspectives on telehealth in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increases in the use of telehealth in palliative care (telepalliative care) prior to, and during, the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a proliferation of studies on the topic. While knowledge is building on how providers and recipients adapt to telepalliative care, no reviews have, as of yet, examined telepalliative care from a patient and family perspective. Therefore, the aim of this integrative review is to explore patients and families' perspectives on telepalliative. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An integrative review will be performed inspired by the methodology of Remmington and Toronto from March 2022 to December 2022. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL will be searched for primary peer-reviewed studies that describe telepalliative care from patient and families' perspectives. Limiters will be used for age; 18 years+, time; 10 years, and language; English and Danish. Hand searches of authors of included articles and reference lists of included articles will be performed. Two reviewers will independently screen and appraise selected articles using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Conflicts will be resolved through discussions with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers into a data matrix with predefined headings and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings will be reported thematically, summarised into a thematic synthesis and discussed in relation to relevant literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant international conference. Reporting of this protocol was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol checklist and prospectively reported to PROSPERO (CRD42022301206).
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 | 0.153 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.025 |
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".