Evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways used in rural and remote Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review protocol is to scope the extent and type of evidence describing evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways that are used in the rural and remote areas of Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. INTRODUCTION: Given the important role that clinical guidance resources can play in minimizing health disparities, it will be useful to understand what resources are being used in rural and remote health contexts and how these are being developed, implemented, and evaluated. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Records will be included from 3 high-income countries that have rural or remote regions and First Nations populations. Records will only be included if they adequately identify the clinical guidance resource, have the resource as a primary focus of the evaluation, and show that the resource has been endorsed or implemented for use in the rural or remote health service. Evaluations of point-of-care testing instruments will be excluded, as well as records from aged care facilities, even if they are from rural and remote areas. METHODS: The JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google. Records in English will be considered for inclusion. Covidence will be used to remove duplicates and organize the selection review process. Data will be extracted using a data charting tool created by the authors. The results will be analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and presented as a series of tables and a narrative summary. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF http://osf.io/6em32.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.365 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".