MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384824598 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2507214/v1

Trauma-Informed Care Practices to Support Caregivers of Children with Severe Illness: Protocol for A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4384824598 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Jibb, Beverley Claire Pomeroy, Carmen Carriere, Elham Hashemi, Isabella Zaffino, Prabdeep Panesar, Kyobin Hwang, Mikaela Mitchell, Aimee K. Hildenbrand, Mary Coleman, Esther Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicinePsychologyNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Family caregivers of children with life-limiting illness or chronic complex medical conditions experience significant psychological challenges related to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of their child. Trauma-informed (or trauma- and resiliency-informed) care interventions targeted at directly preventing or managing trauma-related symptoms using psychological approaches have potential to improve distress and distress-related symptoms among caregivers. The overall objective of this parent-led systematic review is to synthesize the literature on the effect of trauma-informed care services for the prevention and management of traumatic stress and related symptoms in the family caregivers of children with life-limiting or complex medical conditions. Methods Our systematic review will identify studies reviewing the effectiveness of trauma-informed care services for the prevention and management of traumatic stress and related symptoms in family caregivers. We will search Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts databases for articles describing trauma-informed care interventions for these family caregivers. All titles and abstracts will be screened independently and in duplicate with discrepancies resolved by caregivers with lived experience. The same process will be used for full-text articles. Data abstraction will also be conducted independently and in duplicate with team members who are caregivers resolving discrepancies. Data analysis will involve syntheses of study results to better understand intervention effect and related complexities. Discussion This family caregiver initiated- and co-lead systematic review will identify, appraise, and report on the effectiveness of trauma-informed care interventions aiming to prevent or manage traumatic stress and related symptoms in the family caregivers of children with life limiting illnesses. This review will provide needed data to inform the co-design and implementation of high-quality care services aimed at health improvements for families of children with life-limiting or chronic complex medical conditions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022331536 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022331536

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.018
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.009

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→