MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402690831 · doi:10.2196/57062

Coproduction in Social Prescribing Initiatives: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4402690831 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. H. DOUGHERTY, Tamara Tompkins, Elaine Zibrowski, Jesse Cram, Maureen C. Ashe, Le‐Tien Bhaskar, Kiffer G. Card, Christina Godfrey, Paul C. Hébert, Ron Lacombe, Caitlin Muhl, Kate Mulligan, Gillian Mulvale, Michelle Nelson, Myrna Norman, Bobbi Symes, Gary Teare, Vivian Welch, Anita Kothari

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsBruyèreAlberta HealthSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteAlberta Health ServicesCanadian Patient Safety InstituteKingston Health Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser UniversityQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpactPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductionProtocol (science)MedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) takes a holistic approach to health by linking clients from clinical settings to community programs to address their nonmedical needs. The emerging evidence base for SP demonstrates variability in the design and implementation of different SP initiatives. To effectively address these needs, coproduction among clients, communities, stakeholders, and policy makers is important for tailoring SP initiatives for optimal uptake. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the role of coproduction in SP initiatives. The research question is as follows: How and for what purpose has coproduction been incorporated across a range of SP initiatives for different clients? METHODS: A review of international literature will be conducted following the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews. We will search multiple databases including Scopus, MEDLINE, and the PAIS Index, as well as gray literature, from 2000 to 2023. The primary studies included will describe a nonmedical need for clients, a nonmedical SP program or initiative, coproduction of the SP program, and any follow-up. Review articles and commentaries will be excluded. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened, and data will be extracted by at least 2 research team members using Covidence and a pilot-tested extraction template. Clients with lived experience will also participate in the research process. Findings will be descriptively summarized and thematically synthesized to answer the research question. RESULTS: The project was funded in 2023, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptions of what coproduction is meant to accomplish may differ from theoretical aspirations. Continued understanding of how coproduction has been designed and executed across varied international SP models is important for framing engagement in practice for future SP arrangements and their evaluation. We anticipate this review will guide clients, communities, stakeholders, and policy makers in further developing SP practice within health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries B8U4Z; https://osf.io/b8u4z. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57062.

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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.016
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.018

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 head0.839
GPT teacher head0.711
Teacher spread0.128 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207