MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310281904 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00015

Transitional care programs in Canada for older adults transitioning from hospital to home: protocol for a systematic review of text and opinion

2022· review· en· W4310281904 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brittany Barber, Emily Gregg, Marilyn Macdonald, Elaine Moody, Melissa Rothfus, Lori E. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityUniversity of New BrunswickSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureTransitional carePsychological interventionHealth careMedicineGray (unit)IndigenousMEDLINENursingFamily medicineGerontologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to identify what transitional care programs exist across Canada, including the characteristics and outcomes of these programs. INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence of the benefits of transitional care programs to support older adults moving from hospital to home. However, there is limited literature identifying the types of transitional care programs that exist internationally and little evidence available within Canada. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Sources of gray literature published from 2016 that focus on older adults receiving services from transitional care programs to move from hospital to home in Canada will be considered for inclusion. Sources of gray literature will be excluded if interventions are targeted at adults younger than 65 years, Indigenous adults younger than 55 years, or if the primary discharge destination is not an independent community dwelling. Interventions designed for older adults waiting in hospital for long-term care placement will also be excluded from this review. METHODS: An initial limited search of Canadian national gray literature resources will be undertaken, followed by an advanced Google search of Canadian resources and news media reports. Lastly, an advanced search of Google for all 10 provinces and 3 territories will be undertaken to target examples of local transitional care programs that may not be found through a national search, such as local pilot projects, health region-specific programs, and provincial organizations. All identified sources will be retrieved and full text review of selected citations assessed in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data about the characteristics and outcomes of transitional care programs and results will be extracted and synthesized, with a meta-aggregation approach for grading according to JBI ConQual method. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022298821.

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)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.023
Bibliometrics0.0200.016
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.009

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207