MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378746081 · doi:10.2196/44750

Information and Communication Technologies to Support the Provision of Respite Care Services: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4378746081 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aimee R. Castro, Lydia Ould Brahim, Qirong Chen, Antonia Arnaert, Amélie Quesnel‐Vallée, Karyn Moffatt, J. Kildea, Vasiliki Bitzas, Carolyn Pang, Audrey-Jane Hall, Ariana Pagnotta, Argerie Tsimicalis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMcGill University
FundersMedical Research CouncilRéseau de cancérologie RossyRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du QuébecCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlCanadian Nurses FoundationMcGill University
KeywordsRespite careInformation and Communications TechnologyService providerKnowledge managementService (business)BusinessNursingMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Respite care is one of the most frequently requested support services by family caregivers. Yet, too often, respite care services are inaccessible, due in part to families' lack of knowledge regarding available services and a lack of service flexibility. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) may help to improve the flexibility of services available and families' knowledge of such services. However, an understanding of the use of ICTs and research in this area is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic literature on ICTs for supporting the provision of respite care services. METHODS: A scoping review study was conducted. Six library databases were systematically searched for relevant literature. Key data were extracted into a summary chart. Text and quantitative data were coded using descriptive qualitative content analysis techniques, and the results were collated and summarized into a comprehensive narrative. RESULTS: A total of 23 papers describing 15 unique ICT programs exploring the potential of ICTs to support respite care services met the inclusion criteria. ICTs supported the provision of respite care by facilitating information-sharing with families and providers, recruiting and training respite care providers, and coordinating services. Key design considerations for developing respite care ICTs were trustworthiness and participatory design methods. Implementation considerations included designing for complementarity with existing services, assessing the appropriate timing for introducing the ICT-based services, and ensuring adequate promotion strategies to raise awareness about the services. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited but promising research on the potential of ICTs to support the provision of respite care services. Further research should be conducted to advance the results of this review, ultimately aiming to build ICTs that can improve the quality of, and access to, respite care services.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0220.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.389 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR NursingSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207