Impact of the COVID-19 era on preventative primary care for children 0–5 years old: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread disruptions to primary healthcare delivery and shifts to virtual care. Reduced in-person paediatric primary care visit rates have been reported. However, the extent to which access to primary preventative care has been impacted remains unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to characterise the utilisation of preventative primary care and its association with child development for children ages 0-5 years old during the COVID-19 era. In addition, we will determine if specific groups of children are at greater risk for reduced access to care. METHODS: A systematic search will be conducted for studies published between March 11, 2020, and October 2023 in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and CDSR), Web of Science, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). This scoping review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and updated by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Studies related to primary preventative care of children aged 0-5 years old conducted in English and in high-income countries will be screened. Studies published before March 11, 2020, in acute care and low-middle-income settings will be excluded. Results will be summarised for appointments attended, delayed, and missed. In addition, we will summarise findings on the impact of COVID-19 on child development. Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DISCUSSION: Further investigation is required to better understand the relationship between attendance of preventative primary care for children and its effects on child development. The findings obtained from this review will offer essential context to guide policy-making and healthcare service planning for the period following the pandemic.
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 | 0.099 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 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".