Evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways used in rural and remote Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review objective: The objective of this review protocol is to scope the extent and type of evidence describing evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways that are utilized in the rural and remote areas of Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Review questions: The review will seek to answer the question: How are clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways used in the rural and remote areas of Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa NZ being developed, implemented, and evaluated? Additionally, the review will address the following sub-questions: Are the clinical guidance resources (CGRs) being newly developed, adopted or adapted (contextualized) from other contexts and quality tested? What strategies are employed to implement the CGRs, and how are they selected and applied? What approaches and theories are being used to underpin the evaluations? Inclusion Criteria: Studies will be included from three high-income countries which have rural or remote regions and First Nations populations. Studies will only be included if they explicitly identify the CGR, have the resource as a primary focus of the evaluation, and show that the CGR has been endorsed or implemented for use in the rural or remote health service. Evaluations of point of care testing instruments will be excluded, as will studies conducted in aged care facilities, even if they take place in rural and remote areas.
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 | 0.266 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".