Exploring the roles and functions of champions within community-based interventions to support older adults with chronic conditions: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care solutions are needed to meet the need of an ageing population. Health care champions are people who endorse the adoption of new initiatives being implemented within health care settings. Although the role of champions has been cited as key to the success of numerous community-based interventions implemented to improve the care of older adults with chronic conditions, no synthesis of their implementation experiences have been conducted. We report on a scoping review protocol that will be applied to collect evidence on the role of champions within community-based health interventions to support older adults with chronic conditions. Specifically, we will identify how the term 'champion' is used and defined (i.e., conceptualized) and identify the roles (i.e., professional background) and functions of champions (i.e., responsibilities). We will also explore how this role impacts program implementation. METHODS: This is a scoping review protocol informed by guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and a six-stage scoping review methodology. Peer-review literature will be retrieved from Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane JBI and Scopus databases, using a peer-reviewed search strategy developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist. The scoping review will consider all empirical studies published in English. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and then independently screen the literature. Extracted data will be analyzed numerically and thematically. Self-identified champions will be consulted to refine the practice recommendations from this work. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will broadly and systematically identify, define and expand existing knowledge on champions' impact in implementing community-based interventions to support older adults with chronic conditions. We anticipate that our results will lead to a greater understanding of the characteristics and role champions play within these interventions, which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, decision-makers, and health care providers.
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 | 0.194 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.016 |
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".