Comparison of healthcare quality for uninsured and underinsured children through community health centres in Canada and the USA: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children and youth who are uninsured or underinsured in Canada and the USA have limited options where they can receive healthcare. In both countries, community health centres (CHCs) have been established as a solution to provide quality care to children without adequate insurance, including those who are newcomers or refugees. However, little is known about how well these models deliver paediatric care. Cross-country analysis provides an important viewpoint to identify areas of success and growth. The purpose of this scoping review is to compare quality of care for uninsured and underinsured children through CHCs in the USA and Canada. METHODS: This scoping review follows the methodological guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence synthesis. The protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework Registries and can be accessed online. A search will be conducted in electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, CINAHL Complete via EbscoHost, Scopus; Health Business Elite via EbscoHost and Sociological Abstracts via ProQuest) as well as the grey literature. Two reviewers will review all titles and abstracts for inclusion in full-text review. Studies that meet inclusion criteria will be included in full-text review. Data will be extracted into Covidence, using the Donabedian model as a conceptual framework. Findings will be synthesised in a narrative format. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study only uses publicly available data, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be shared at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, findings will be prepared into a policy brief or white paper to be shared with relevant policy stakeholders to advocate for a better model of care for marginalised children and youth.
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 | 0.122 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.007 |
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".