Identifying Factors That Influence How Pediatric Patients or Their Caregivers Decide to Present to an Emergency Department: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To map and describe the extent and type of evidence in relation to factors that influence how pediatric patients or their caregivers decide to present to an emergency department (ED). Introduction: Studies in countries with universal health care systems have suggested that while patients may consider using services outside of the hospital for care, they often end up presenting to an ED. Understanding how pediatric patients and caregivers decide to present to an ED can inform future health care design to mediate decisions before an ED presentation. Inclusion criteria: Literature will be included if it assesses patients between zero and 17 years who present to the ED and reports findings from the patient’s or caregiver’s perspectives. Studies eligible for inclusion are those that focus on ED presentations in a country with universal health care, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) membership, and classification as a high-income country. Studies that focus on patients transferred to the ED from a residential or correctional facility will be excluded. Methods: A scoping review using JBI methodology will be conducted. A preliminary search indicated no scoping reviews in this field have been carried out. CINAHL, MEDLINE ALL, PsycInfo, and Embase will be searched with no date limits. No language restrictions will be applied. Data will be extracted using a standardized form. Articles will be screened and data extracted by two independent reviews, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer or through discussion. Data will be analyzed through tables with an accompanying narrative summary and PRISMA-ScR.
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 | 0.105 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.012 |
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".