MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400929030 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00380

Experiences of parents of teenagers with life-threatening food allergies: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2024· article· en· W4400929030 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Dobbin-Williams, Renee Crossman, Michelle Swab

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllergyProtocol (science)Food allergyQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineImmunologyAlternative medicineSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to synthesize the experiences of parents of teenagers with life-threatening food allergies. INTRODUCTION: Life-threatening food allergies are increasing globally, with a significant effect on families, particularly parents. The teenage years are a time of increasing autonomy for young people; however, for parents living with and caring for a teenager with a life-threatening food allergy, this responsibility can have a considerable impact. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative studies on the experiences of parents of teenagers with life-threatening food allergies, including, but not limited to, caregiving, parenting, and psychosocial experiences; any day-to-day activities, happenings, thoughts, or feelings related to parenting a teenager with life-threatening food allergies; and the handing over of responsibility for the allergy to the teenager. The review will include studies on participants in the community and in health care settings such as inpatient hospitalizations, outpatient visits, school and sports events, family dinners, restaurants, and travel. Participants from all cultural backgrounds, socio-economic backgrounds, and countries will be included. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. The search for published studies will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost); Embase (Ovid); LILACS, IBSS, and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest). The search for unpublished studies will include ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE), Google, and Google Scholar. Databases will be searched from inception until the present. JBI tools and guidelines will be used to conduct critical appraisal, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of confidence in the findings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024503698.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207