Extended-duration work shifts among care workers: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The available literature reviews of shift work among care workers are almost exclusively focused on 8-hour shifts and 12-hour shifts or 24-hour on-call shifts for physicians. We do not yet know the scope of evidence regarding extended-duration work shifts (defined as on-duty shifts of 16 or more hours per shift) in diverse healthcare settings, such as the impact on care workers and recipients of care. In this proposed scoping review, we aim to provide an overview of the current research regarding extended-duration work shifts among care workers in various healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Comprehensive searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases and grey literature sources. We will include empirical studies that focus on extended-duration work shifts among care workers working in different healthcare settings, including home care, community, acute care settings, long-term care homes and assisted living facilities. We will not apply language restrictions. We will conduct searches in August 2024, followed by screening of records. We will exclude research on on-call work shifts and investigations that solely focus on interns. The included literature will be screened independently by pairs of reviewers at the title and abstract review phase, followed by a full-text review for relevant literature. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus or discussion with a third reviewer. The results will be extracted and summarised in the final report in tabular form, when possible, along with narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data for this study will come from published literature, so an ethics review is not necessary. The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals, with the expectation that they will guide future research and inform future management of work shifts in care workers.
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 | 0.144 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 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".