Home Health Care Providers’ Readiness to Care for Children and Youth With Complex Medical Conditions: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Children and youth with medical complexities have chronic conditions, functional limitations, and extensive care needs requiring significant family involvement and frequent health service use. Pediatric medicine has improved their life expectancy, shifting care from acute to home settings. In Ontario, home care is publicly funded and includes nursing, therapy, personal support, and allied health services. However, families continue providing the bulk of care, often at great personal costs. As care complexity increases, so does the reliance on home care providers. Yet, many providers report feeling unprepared due to insufficient pediatric training, lack of supervision, and system-level gaps. Here we applied Weiner’s theory of organizational readiness for change, framing readiness as a shared psychological state involving commitment to and confidence in delivering change, thus helping conceptualize provider readiness as encompassing individual competence, contextual supports, and motivational factors. Despite its importance, provider readiness in pediatric home care remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE We examine how home care providers perceive their readiness to care for children and youth with medical complexities, factors influencing readiness, and strategies proposed to enhance their capacity to deliver safe, coordinated, developmentally appropriate home care. METHODS This scoping review follows the updated Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Articles focusing on (1) children and youth with medical complexities aged 0-18 years receiving home care and (2) with at least one chronic medical condition, and (3) paid home care providers will be searched on MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Gray literature will be searched on Google Scholar and ProQuest (Dissertations & Theses). A 2-stage screening process will be conducted in Covidence, involving title and abstract screening and full-text review by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be extracted using predefined charting categories and analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. RESULTS As of May 2025, screening is underway. The review will map key themes across provider types, care settings, and training contexts and identify factors influencing provider readiness including access to training, system navigation supports, and workplace role clarity and chart recommendations or strategies to enhance readiness. Gaps in pediatric-specific competencies and workforce preparation may also emerge. CONCLUSIONS This review will synthesize current evidence on provider readiness in pediatric home care, identifying strengths, challenges, and development areas. Findings will inform provider training, workforce development, and policy strategies to ensure children and youth with medical complexities receive safe, coordinated, effective home care. A deeper understanding of provider readiness will support more sustainable home care systems and improve outcomes for children and youth with medical complexities and their families. CLINICALTRIAL OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/N4FAJ; https://osf.io/n4faj INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/76796
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 | 0.080 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 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".