Integration of patient-oriented research principles in health institutions: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2011, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (POR) for healthcare and academic institutions to increase patient participation in health research. POR considers patients and caregivers as partners with scientific investigators, healthcare professionals and administrative decision-makers. As POR becomes a standard worldwide, the how-to, practical aspects of POR integration in healthcare institutions remain uncharted territory. A more accurate POR range in health research would improve healthcare systems. Yet the availability of standardised accreditation has not been achieved. The research question for this scoping review arose from a patient-partner in our team who experienced organisational challenges in healthcare institutions related to her role. It will overview and map the available evidence of organisational structures and changes that enable the integration of POR within healthcare institutions globally. This should serve our future projects to propose standardised pan-Canadian POR accreditation protocols. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and predetermined eligibility, we will perform a qualitative scoping review, searching for healthcare institution's organisational structures and changes in Patient-Oriented Research (POR)-related accreditation, criteria and procedures in academic peer-reviewed databases and grey literature. The scoping review's steps are as follows: (1) framing the research question; (2) targeting the documentation; (3) selecting documents by two reviewers; (4) charting/extracting data; (5) summarising and reporting the results. The search strategy will be applied to three databases for academic literature, and a search for grey literature will be performed. Emergent documents from academic studies or grey literature describing the organisational structure or changes to integrate POR within healthcare institutions, from 2012 to the present and in English or French, will be included. All articles will be analysed by two reviewers individually for inclusion. Extracted quantitative and qualitative data will describe eligible studies and POR-relevant elements. Tables mapping the organisational structures will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The methodology consists of exploring published evidence; therefore, ethics approval is not required. Patient-partners will provide feedback on findings and strategies for disseminating the results. Dissemination activities will include peer-reviewed publication, co-creation of teaching seminars and academic presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review was registered prospectively with Open Science Framework (OSF). Available: https://osf.io/4t6ud.
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 | 0.267 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.014 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".