Ethical and Quality of Care-Related Challenges of Digital Health Twins in Older Care Settings: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health twins (DHTs) have been evolving with their diverse applications in medicine, specifically in older care settings, with the increasing demands of older adults. DHTs have already contributed to improving the quality of dementia and trauma care, cardiac treatment, and health care services for older individuals. Despite its many benefits, the optimum implementation of DHTs has faced several challenges associated with ethical issues, quality of care, management and leadership, and design considerations in older care settings. Since the need for such care is continuously rising and there is evident potential for DHTs to meet those needs, this review aims to map key concepts to address the gaps in the research knowledge to improve DHT implementation. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the problems encountered by older adults and care providers associated with the application of DHTs. The synthesis will collate the evidence of the issues associated with quality of care, the ethical implications of DHTs, and the strategies undertaken to overcome those challenges in older care settings. METHODS: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The published studies will be searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, JBI, and Web of Science, and the unpublished studies through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. Studies published in English from 2002 will be considered. This review will include studies of older individuals (aged 65 years or older) undergoing care delivery associated with DHTs and their respective care providers. The concept will include the application of the technology, and the context will involve studies based on the older care setting. A broad scope of evidence, including quantitative, qualitative, text and opinion studies, will be considered. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and then review the full text. Data will be extracted from the included studies using a data extraction tool developed for this study. RESULTS: The results will be presented in a PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram. A draft charting table will be developed as a data extraction tool. The results will be presented as a "map" of the data in a logical, diagrammatic, or tabular form in a descriptive format. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence synthesis is expected to uncover the shreds of evidence required to address the ethical and care quality-related challenges associated with applying DHTs. A synthesis of various strategies used to overcome identified challenges will provide more prospects for adopting them elsewhere and create a resource allocation model for older individuals. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51153.
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 | 0.126 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.009 |
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.
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".