Continuity of care interventions for people with stroke and their caregivers: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The needs of people with stroke and caregivers' change as they transition across the stroke care continuum from initial symptom onset to community living. Continuity of care interventions may support these changing needs. Continuity of care refers to care provided to individuals that is coherent, connected, and consistent across settings. Interventions have been developed to enhance continuity of care, but to date, no reviews have identified the core components of these interventions specific to various care transitions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the literature on continuity of care interventions that address the needs of people with stroke and/or their caregivers specific to stroke care transitions. METHODS: The study is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. The search will be conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, restricting to articles in English. Core concepts of stroke (e.g., ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke) and continuity of care (e.g., early supported discharge) and their synonyms will be used as search terms. Two reviewers will assess articles for inclusion. Data will be extracted and synthesised using quantitative descriptive analysis and deductive content analysis. A steering committee, consisting of people with lived experiences, researchers, and healthcare professionals, will discuss the charted data, and identify any gaps in the literature. DISCUSSION: This research will identify the components of continuity of care interventions, the specific transitions that they address, and any variability in components across different transitions. This research will identify gaps in the continuity of care literature such as where transition interventions are needed.
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 | 0.091 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 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; 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".