MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400453656 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.50

051 An overview on how patients and the public are involved in scaling initiatives in health and social services: perspectives from a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4400453656 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta de Carvalho Corôa, Ali Ben Charif, Vincent Robitaille, Diogo Mochcovitch, M. Samri, Talagbé Gabin Akpo, Amédé Gogovor, Virginie Blanchette, Lucas Gomes Souza, Kathy Kastner, Amélie M. Achim, Robert KD McLean, Andrew Milat, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research CentreManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingPublic healthComputer sciencePublic healthcareKnowledge managementManagement scienceData sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringMathematicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for scaling shared decision making. We aim to provide an overview on how patients and the public are involved in scaling initiatives in health and social services. Methods In a scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in health and social services that used PPI strategies and reported any outcome. We searched databases from inception to September 2020, and grey literature. Paired reviewers selected and extracted eligible records. We performed a narrative synthesis. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public. Results We included 77 unique reports that reported 87 scaling initiatives. Most initiatives that targeted a country occurred in higher-income countries (n = 29). Most scaling initiatives involved patients and the public throughout all phases of the scaling (n = 39). Most PPI was at the level of collaboration (n = 36); most frequently reported ethical lenses for PPI were consequentialist-utilitarian (aiming to increase effectiveness) (n = 68). Discussion Patients and the public are increasingly involved in all phases of scaling. Although collaboration was frequently reported, the practice of co-production does not seem to be well- established yet in the context of scaling. Also, there is a need for more available evidence about how key scaling participants in low- and middle-income countries perceive and communicate about PPI in scaling using their own local concepts, terminology, and knowledge. Finally, a combination of ethical lenses is required in approaching PPI, fostering an understanding of PPI not only as an instrument for increasing effectiveness but also as a duty, a right, and a guiding principle. Conclusions PPI in scaling is increasing in health and social care services but co-production is still a challenge. Co-construction requires extra resources that should be anticipated for scaling.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0290.033
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→