Experiences and perceptions of health care professionals making treatment decisions for older adults with memory loss: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to critically analyze and synthesize the experiences and perceptions of health care professionals making decisions that result in treatment recommendations for older adults living with memory loss who are experiencing health problems. INTRODUCTION: Health care professionals provide care to older adults living with memory loss and other coexisting health conditions across all clinical settings. Older adults living with memory loss most commonly experience impaired independent decision-making, which can challenge health care professionals when decisions about treatment need to be made. These challenges contribute to older adults with memory loss receiving inappropriate treatment and experiencing higher morbidity than those without memory loss. To date, existing reviews have not focused on the experiences and perceptions of health care professionals who are making treatment decisions when older adults living with memory loss experience health problems. A deeper exploration of this evidence is needed to understand health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of treatment decision-making to support the goal of improving care for older adults. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This systematic review will consider studies across all clinical settings focused on the experiences and perceptions of health care professionals making treatment decisions for older adults with memory loss who are experiencing health problems. METHODS: We will conduct a comprehensive systematic search using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Two reviewers will independently appraise the selected studies and extract qualitative data using the recommended JBI method for study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis. The ConQual approach will be applied to provide a level of confidence for the review findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021271485.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".