Parents’ experiences and information needs when seeking emergency department care for their medically complex child: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To provide a comprehensive understanding of parents’ self-reported experiences and/or information needs related to the management of their child with medical complexity in the emergency department. Background Children with medical complexity frequently rely on emergency department services to address sudden changes in health status. While some primary research explores family experiences in caring for these children, there has been no comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence. Inclusion Criteria Primary studies of any design will be included (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, and multi-method) if they are conducted in outpatient care settings, ambulatory care, or primary care settings (emergency departments, urgent care centres, community clinics) with parents, family caregivers, or legal guardians of children (0-18 years) with medical complexity. Studies must present parents’ self-reported experiences and/or information needs related to the management of their child with medical complexity. Methods A health research librarian will develop and implement search strategies in the following electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text via EBSCOhost to identify relevant evidence. Two reviewers will independently screen and categorize identified records based on titles and abstracts (Stage 1). The full text of relevant records will then be screened independently by two reviewers (Stage 2). Quality assessments and data extraction of the included records will be done in duplicate using standardized forms. Disagreements will be resolved through third-party adjudication. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 (MMAT) will be used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data analysis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) convergent integrated approach, whereby quantitative and qualitative data will be synthesized simultaneously. Summary Findings from this review may be utilised by healthcare providers and policy makers to enhance parents’ experiences and support the care of children with medical complexity in emergency settings. These findings may also inform the development of knowledge translation resources (e.g., videos, infographics) for parents, as well as educational tools or interventions for healthcare providers working in emergency departments. Review Registration The a priori protocol for this mixed methods systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on April 26, 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42024534701).
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 | 0.137 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.006 |
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".