MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317039649 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2406630/v1

Understanding heterogeneity and building capacity for research in long-term care and geriatric settings: a systematic qualitative review and conceptual mapping framework using mixed methods

2023· preprint· en· W4317039649 on OpenAlexaff
Quôc Dinh Nguyên, Marie‐France Forget, Xi Sophie Zhang, Catherine Richer, Renata Podbielski, Pierrette Gaudreau, Philippe Desmarais

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual frameworkConstruct (python library)BlueprintQualitative researchProcess (computing)PsychologyKnowledge managementThe Conceptual FrameworkSociologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Older adults are underrepresented in research. Heterogeneity of research processes in this population, specifically in long-term care (LTC) and geriatric acute care (GAC), is not well described and may impede the design, planning, and conduct of research. Objective Identify, quantify, and map stakeholders, research stages, and transversal themes of research processes, to develop a mapping framework. Methods Multicomponent mixed methods study. An environmental scan was used to initiate a preliminary framework. We conducted a systematic literature search on process, barriers, and methods for clinical research in GAC and LTC to extract and update stakeholders, research stages, and themes. Importance and interactions of elements were synthesized via heatmaps by number of articles, mentions, and content intersections. Results For our initial framework, we surveyed 24 stakeholders. Of 9277 records, 68 articles were included with 12 stakeholders, 13 research stages, 17 transversal themes (either barriers, facilitators, general themes, or recommendations), and 1868 intersections. Differences in relative importance between LTC and GAC emerged for stakeholders (staff, managers vs. caregivers, ethics committees), and for research stages (funding, facility recruitment vs. ethics, individual recruitment). Crucial themes by stakeholders were collaboration for the research team; communication, trust, and human resources for managers; heterogeneity for patients and residents. A heatmap framework synthesizing vital stakeholders and themes per research stage was generated. Conclusions We identified and quantified the interactions between stakeholders, stages, and themes to characterize heterogeneity in LTC and GAC research. Our framework may serve as a blueprint to co-construct and improve each stage of the research process.

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)0.318
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3180.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0320.027
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.021
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.029 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→