Continuity of Care Interventions for People with Stroke and Caregivers: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".