Continence care quality from the perspective of older adults receiving home care services and residents of long-term care: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence is associated with social isolation, deconditioning, depression, falls and early mortality. It impairs quality of life, even in residents of nursing homes, and, in the community, increases the risk of institutionalisation. Care focused on the preservation of dignity during intimate care is important in the care of older adults. Despite this, there are few data which seek to define the quality of care or desired outcomes of care from the older adult's perspective. This scoping review aims to assess the research literature addressing the question of what is known about the quality of continence care from the perspective of older adults (>65 years old) in long-term care and from those in receipt of home care to identify gaps in the literature and direct further research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method will be followed. The CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, SCOPUS, PROSPERO, Web of Science and JBI Evidence Synthesis databases will be searched using keywords for publications within the last 20 years without restriction on publication type or language. A search of grey literature and websites will be conducted. Reference lists of the retrieved articles will be used to identify additional literature. A preliminary search of MEDLINE was performed (21 November 2023), to identify articles. Search results will be exported into a management tool for screening and analysis. Article screening will be undertaken by two authors, and a third will be included if needed to resolve any differences. Data analysis will be guided by theoretical frameworks. The protocol for this study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/bprq9/). POTENTIAL IMPACT: Information on what constitutes quality of care or desired outcomes of care from the perspective of this segment of the population is lacking. This review will synthesise knowledge and provide research direction. Findings can potentially lead to new directions in the provision of care for vulnerable older adults. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval for a scoping review is not required. The results will be published in a high-impact journal with a focus on open access publication.
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 | 0.076 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.010 |
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".