MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297064693 · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02069-1

Identifying performance factors of long-term care facilities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4297064693 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Josiane Létourneau, Émilie Bélanger, Drissa Sia, Idrissa Beogo, Stéphanie Robins, Katya Kruglova, Maripier Jubinville, Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Context (archaeology)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Protocol (science)Term (time)Medical emergencyVirologyAlternative medicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with serious consequences for the residents. Some LTCFs performed better than others, experiencing lower case and death rates due to COVID-19. A comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs is lacking, as no published studies have applied a multidimensional conceptual framework to evaluate the performance of LTCFs during the pandemic. Much research has focused on infection prevention and control strategies or specific disease outcomes (e.g., death rates). To address these gaps, our scoping review will identify and analyze the performance factors that have influenced the management of COVID-19 in LTCFs by adopting a multidimensional conceptual framework. METHODS: We will query the CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), CAIRN, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed articles written in English or French and published between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. We will include articles that focus on the specified context (COVID-19), population (LTCFs), interest (facilitators and barriers to performance of LTCFs), and outcomes (dimensions of performance according to a modified version of the Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec conceptual framework). Each article will be screened by at least two co-authors independently followed by data extraction of the included articles by one co-author and a review by the principal investigator. RESULTS: We will present the results both narratively and with visual aids (e.g., flowcharts, tables, conceptual maps). DISCUSSION: Our scoping review will provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the performance of LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This knowledge can help inform the development of more effective infection prevention and control measures for future pandemics and outbreaks. The results of our review may lead to improvements in the care and safety of LTCF residents and staff. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Research Registry researchregistry7026.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207