Integration of the social determinants of health into quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quality monitoring is a critical component of high-performing cancer care systems. Quality indicators (QIs) are standardised, evidence-based measures of healthcare quality that allow healthcare systems to track performance, identify gaps in healthcare delivery and inform areas of priority for strategic planning. Social structures and economic systems that allow for unequal access to power and resources that shape health and health inequities can be described through the social determinants of health (SDoH) framework. Therefore, granular analysis of healthcare quality through SDoH frameworks is required to identify patient subgroups who may experience health inequity. Given the high burden of disease of colorectal cancer (CRC) and well-defined cancer care pathways, CRC is often the first disease site targeted by health systems for quality improvement. The objective of this review is to examine how SDoH have been integrated into QIs for CRC surgery. This review aims to address three primary questions: (1) Have SDoH been integrated into the development, reporting and assessment of CRC surgery QIs? (2) When integrated, what measures and statistical methods have been applied? (3) In which direction do individual SDoH influence QIs outputs? METHODS: This review will follow Arksey and O'Malley frameworks for scoping reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR databases for papers that examine QIs for CRC surgery applicable to healthcare systems from database inception until January 2023. Interventional trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies, reviews, case series and qualitative study designs will be included. Two authors will independently review all titles, abstracts and full texts to determine which studies meet the inclusion criteria. ETHICS & DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this review. Results will be disseminated through scientific presentation and relevant conferences targeted for researchers examining healthcare quality and equity in cancer care. REGISTRATION DETAILS: osf.io/vfzd3-Open Science Framework.
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 | 0.095 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 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".