School reintegration following hospitalisation for children with medical complexity and chronic disease diagnoses: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Schools play a significant role in children’s social, emotional and intellectual well- being. For children with medical complexity (CMC) and chronic disease diagnoses (CDD), an absence from school due to prolonged hospitalisation places them at risk for greater social exclusion and poorer academic outcomes than their healthy counterparts. Processes that support the school reintegration of children with complex and chronic medical conditions currently lack consistency and identified evidence- based practices. This scoping review aims to integrate the relevant literature on current reintegration procedures as well as assess stakeholders’ perceived challenges related to children with CMC and CDD’s return to school following hospitalisation. Finally, information will be synthesised regarding parental and child involvement in reintegration strategies. Methods and analysis The current scoping review follows the five- stage framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). The search syntax will be applied in Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Education Resource, ERIC, CINAHL and SocIndex. Peer- reviewed journal articles will be included without the restriction of publication year or language. However, only children and adolescents aged 4–18 with CMC and CDD, who have been out of school for 2 weeks or more and reintegrated into a non- hospital school setting will be included. Articles will be screened by two authors based on the outlined eligibility criteria. Data will be summarised qualitatively and where applicable, visualisation techniques such as tables, graphs and figures will be implemented to address approaches, strategies and outcomes related to reintegration to school following hospitalisation. Ethics and dissemination The current study comprises available publications and does not collect primary data. For this reason, ethics approval is not necessary. The results of this scoping review will be prepared and submitted for publication in a peer- reviewed journal and presented at future conferences to key stakeholders focusing on educational accessibility and inclusion.
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 | 0.089 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.012 |
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".