MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389229041 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-180239

Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perceptions of Quality Care for Inpatient Sickle Cell Disease Care: A Scoping Review of Qualitative Literature

2023· review· en· W4389229041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hayley Brianne Flanagan, Aaron Bloschichak, Lorraine Porcello, Alyssa Harbaugh, Naomi Booker, Alejandro Vera, Francis W Coyne, Lalita Movva, Ashmita Chatterjee, Ashley Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINEInpatient careHealth careFamily medicineQualitative researchScopusInclusion (mineral)Emergency departmentDiseaseNursingPsychological interventionPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The experiences of patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who receive care in the outpatient and emergency department settings have been well-explored, resulting in the implementation of guidelines ensuring that patients with SCD receive high-quality care in those healthcare settings. However, there remains limited guidance on what constitutes high quality inpatient SCD care despite most patients with SCD of all ages having at least one hospitalization per year. Our overall goal is to use mixed methods scoping review methodology to identify potential inpatient SCD quality of care indicators. The goal of this study is to identify qualitative research examining inpatient SCD care, focusing on the experiences of patients with SCD, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers that should inform inpatient SCD care quality of care indicators. Methods: We search seven databases including CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and World Health Organization for relevant articles using a search algorithm developed by a research librarian. Using an online collaborative software designed for conducting literature reviews, a team of independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of 9,938 articles for inclusion, with two reviewers screening each article. Articles were selected for inclusion if they were qualitative in nature and related to the experiences of patients (or their family members/providers) with SCD while admitted to an inpatient service. Articles were excluded if they related to the care of patients with SCD solely within the ED, or if they related to the care of pregnant patients with SCD. We resolved discrepancies by discussion among reviewers, with final decisions on inclusion made by the senior author. We completed full text review of included articles with manual data extraction (Table). We plan to next conduct a thematic analysis by organizing all identified themes from the included articles into sub-themes, which will then be categorized into parent themes as defined by the Donabedian Model. Decisions for clusters of sub-themes will be reached by team consensus. Results: Initial literature search retrieved 20,819 studies with removal of 10,906 duplicates (Figure). Of the remaining 9,913 studies that underwent title and abstract review, we identified 186 for inclusion in full text review. Fourty-three studies were included in data extraction, of which only 13 were recent (published between 2013-2023). The majority of studies explored patient perspectives on inpatient care of SCD (n=31), whereas a smaller number of studies included caregiver (n=12) and healthcare provider (n=10) perspectives. Several studies explored multiple stakeholder perspectives (n=8). Of the studies that explored healthcare provider perspectives, both nurses (n=7) and physicians (n=9) were represented. Only two studies included social workers in their study population, and none included case managers or pharmacists. Of the studies that explored caregiver perspectives, a majority focused on caregivers of children with SCD (n=10), while fewer focused on caregivers of adults with SCD (n=4). The majority of studies addressed adult SCD care only (n=24), while 11 studies included only pediatric inpatient SCD care. 8 studies included both pediatric and adult patient populations. The most common study locations were the United States (n=25) and the United Kingdom (n=11). Other study locations included Brazil (n=3), Bahrain (n=2), Uganda (n=2), Canada (n=2), Cameroon (n=1), and Jamaica (n=1). Some studies included multiple countries. Conclusions: Existing qualitative literature about inpatient SCD care is concentrated on the patient experience. Studies regarding healthcare providers' perspectives primarily included nursing and physician perspectives with a notable absence or underrepresentation of other interdisciplinary team members. It is notable that while African countries have the highest global burden of SCD, only a small number of qualitative studies examined inpatient SCD care in those countries. In next steps, we will use deductive thematic analysis of extracted qualitative data to identify potential structural, process, and outcome measures for inpatient SCD care from patient, caregiver, and healthcare provider perspectives.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0230.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders→French-language works237,207→