Integrated care for adults with chronic musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to describe the current evidence exploring integrated care for people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. INTRODUCTION: The integrated model of care is an emerging approach to delivering person-centered care. Integrated care supports the management of people with major chronic health conditions; however, the evidence behind its use to support people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders is scant. This scoping review will synthesize how integrated care is conceptualized, delivered, and evaluated for people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. The review will also synthesize the attributes, components, elements, goals, frequently evaluated outcomes, theories/frameworks, and facilitators and barriers to delivering this model among people with musculoskeletal disorders. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies conducted on the delivery and/or evaluation of integrated care for people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders in any health care setting (eg, primary, secondary, tertiary) and/or geographical location (countries, cultures) will be considered. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI scoping review methodology. Databases such as MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), the JBI EBP Database, PEDRO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and Web of Science, as well as sources of gray literature, will be thoroughly searched. Papers published in all languages will be considered. Two reviewers will independently review the selected articles and extract data using a data extraction tool developed for this scoping review. The analysis will involve numerical and descriptive summaries of the selected articles and will be presented using graphs and tables, in line with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
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 | 0.095 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.017 |
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".