Standards of care for pediatric clinical service delivery: A rapid scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When pediatric services are not coordinated, children, youth, and their caregivers cannot always access the right services at the right time. Guidance is needed for how pediatric services should be planned and organized to improve integrated care. The objective of this rapid scoping review was to map and characterize current evidence on standards of care for integrated pediatric levels of service. This rapid scoping review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Rapid Reviews Interim Guidance. We searched academic databases and gray literature in 2022, published in English from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, with no date parameter. Fifty-three sources met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Levels of service frameworks categorized services into three, four, or six distinct levels. Eight sources described integrated levels of service. Most pediatric standards of care frameworks defined levels of service by roles and responsibilities. Differences were defined by transitions between levels of care, planning for services across urban and rural communities, and coordinating integrated levels of service. Future research is required to build evidence base of how levels of service frameworks can be used in practice, adapted to local contexts, and evaluated.
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 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".