MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413038128 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00505

Assessment of clinical skills in laboratory settings in prelicensure health education programs: a scoping review protocol

2025· review· en· W4413038128 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Furlong, Jaime Riley, Alexis McGill, Richelle Witherspoon, Patricia Morris, Rose McCloskey, Renée Gordon, Lisa Keeping‐Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Medical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map the available literature on the assessment of clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs. INTRODUCTION: Prelicensure health programs are facing growing challenges in delivering learning experiences that sufficiently prepare students for safe practice as clinical settings contend with workforce shortages, rising workload demands, and increasingly complex patient populations. One safety component is the assessment of clinical skills prior to entering practice and caring for patients. Laboratory experiences generally include opportunities for hands-on practice and demonstration of a new clinical skill, such as medication administration or infection prevention and control measures. This scoping review is necessary as laboratory assessments play a crucial role in providing insights into students' readiness to perform relevant clinical skills prior to caring for patients in practice settings. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies on approaches and strategies used by faculty, staff, and/or students when assessing clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs. Assessment of postlicensure health care professionals' clinical skills will be excluded. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), ERIC (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Google (with advanced search strategies). Two independent reviewers will screen citations for inclusion as well as conduct data extraction and analysis. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Data will be presented in tables and charts, accompanied by a narrative summary. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://osf.io/yz5bu.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0240.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.482 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207