MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887779392 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/j6h4r

Continuity of Care Interventions for People with Stroke and Caregivers: A Scoping Review Protocol

2023· other· en· W6887779392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)Continuity of careProtocol (science)Stroke (engine)Qualitative researchMEDLINEInclusion and exclusion criteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to examine the current literature on continuity of care interventions that address the needs of people with stroke (PWS) and/or their caregivers as they transition. Introduction: Enhancing the continuity of care for people with stroke and their caregivers can contribute to improved quality of care. Continuity of care is coherent, connected, and consistent care provided based on a person’s needs and personal context. As the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations emphasize supporting PWS and caregivers through care transitions, it is important to understand current continuity of care interventions. To date, no reviews have identified the core components of these interventions specific to care transitions (e.g., acute care to rehab). Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed articles focused on continuity of care interventions for PWS and/or their caregivers in any geographical setting. Articles must examine transition from one location to another. Methods: We have searched on Ovid MEDLINE, (2) CINAHL Plus with Full Text, (3) PsycINFO, and (4) EMBASE from January 2000 to January 2023, restricting to articles published in English. We will include articles that meet key inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will extract data related to components of continuity of care interventions. We will synthesize the data using quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative content analysis. Results will be further informed by a consultation exercise where we will discuss emerging themes and identify needs for future practice and research pertaining to stroke care. Reporting of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). 1. O’Callaghan, G, et al., BMC Health Serv. Res., 22(1), 1219-1221, 2022. 2. Haggerty, JL, et al., BMJ, 327(7425), 1219-1221, 2003. 3. Cameron, JI, et al., Int J Stroke, 11(7), 807-822, 2016 4. Mountain, A, et al., Int J Stroke, 15(7), 789-806, 2020

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.013
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207