MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383301754 · doi:10.1111/jan.15756

A scoping review and intersectionality‐based analysis of heart failure telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations

2023· review· en· W4383301754 on OpenAlexafffund
Saleema Allana, Colleen M. Norris, Armish Hussain, Alexander M. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTelehealthPsychological interventionIntersectionalityHeart failureMedicineTelemedicinePsychologyNursingSociologyPolitical scienceHealth careGender studiesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To map the existing body of heart failure (HF) telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations, and to conduct an intersectionality-based analysis utilizing a structured checklist. DESIGN: A scoping review and intersectionality-based analysis. DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in March 2022 in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. REVIEW METHODS: First, the titles and abstracts were screened, and then the entire articles were screened against the inclusion criteria. Two of the investigators screened the articles independently in Covidence. The studies included and excluded at various stages of screening were depicted through a PRISMA flow diagram. The quality of the included studies was assessed based on the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Each study was read thoroughly and the intersectionality-based checklist by Ghasemi et al. (2021) was applied, whereby a yes/no response was marked for each question on the checklist and the relevant supporting data were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in this review. About 42.2% of the responses indicated that studies incorporated the principles of intersectionality at the 'problem identification' stage, followed by 42.9% and 29.44% responses indicating incorporation of these principles at the 'design and implementation' and 'evaluation' stages respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the research around HF telehealth interventions for vulnerable populations is not adequately grounded in appropriate theoretical underpinning. The principles of intersectionality have been applied mostly to the problem identification and the intervention development and implementation stages, and not so much at the evaluation stage. Future research must fill the identified gaps in this area of research. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Since this was a scoping, there was no patient contribution to this work; however, based on this study's findings, we are undertaking patient-centred studies with patient contribution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207