Synthesis of existing literature on the colorectal surgery patients’ challenges during hospital-to-home transitions: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in innovation to improve patients' transition experiences, it is unclear-in the context of colorectal surgery-what elements of patient education and care could provide the greatest benefit to patient experiences and clinical outcomes. Thus, this scoping review protocol aims to outline a plan to synthesise the existing literature from countries with publicly funded health systems (ie, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA) on the challenges experienced by colorectal surgery patients' when transitioning home from the hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a scoping review to identify literature relating to adult patient challenges experienced when transitioning from hospital to home following colorectal surgery. We will search the following databases for studies published between 2012 and present: Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid). Title, abstract and full-text review will be conducted independently by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted, collated, summarised and reported numerically (eg, frequency counts) and presented using descriptive summaries. In addition, data related to the challenges reported by colorectal surgery patients during their transition home from the hospital will be descriptively analysed using deductive content analysis. The extracted challenges will be categorised according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and the surgical transition trajectory (eg, predischarge, during discharge and postdischarge) to identify when in the patient journey is the best point to implement improved practices and achieve patient-centred care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol does not require ethics approval as data have not been collected or analysed. The findings will highlight insights into patient care transitions following colorectal surgery, which will be disseminated via publications and presentations.
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 | 0.149 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.016 |
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".