Patient-Oriented Research Assessment’ Criteria Procedures for Health Institutions; A scoping revue protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient Oriented Research (POR) considers patients and caregivers as partners with scientific investigators, healthcare professionals and administrative decision-makers. In August 2011 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have framed a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) as a good-practice guide for Healthcare and Academic Institutions to increase patient’s participation in health research, but little is known about the POR official assessment in Health Institutions. Being accurate about the POR range in Health Research would better reflect the POR prevalence in practice reality, but the availability of standardised POR Assessment Criteria Procedures (ACP) has not yet been achieved. OBJECTIVE To overview and map evidence on existing ACP to certify the POR practice in Health Institutions. Consequently, our research question is « What are the available ACP for POR practice evaluation in Health Institution’s Medical Research? » This should serve our projects to propose standardised pan-Canadian POR accreditation protocols, and andragogy workshop tools to enrol and achieve them. METHODS Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and predetermined eligibility (Population-Health Institutions, Concept-POR/ACP, Context- any Medical Research, Outcomes- any relevant POR/ACP from Health Institution’s Protocols (e.g. self-declared regulation, policy, good-practice, guide-lines) to national Administrations Programs (e.g. registered, certification, accreditation, license), we are performing a qualitative scoping review, searching for POR/ACP in academic peer-reviewed data bases (e.g. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Lib), and grey literature libraries (e.g. Federal and Provincial Administration, public and private health and academic institutions records, websites and conferences data). Should institution’s self regulations not be clearly stated, we will use a non-interventional POR Criteria Quiz, to assess that practice with scientific investigators, decision-makers and patients as stake holders. Our scoping review’s steps are: 1) framing the research question; 2) targeting the documentation; 3) selecting studies by 2 reviewers; 4) charting/extract data; 5) summarize and report the results. Only documents in English or French will be overviewed, from 01.01.2012 to date, and only those quoting about POR/ACP (either Programs or Protocols) still in service to date will be considered. As in many scoping revues, selected sources of evidence will not be critically appraised. We will rather perform a qualitative narrative presentation of POR/ACPs and depict their relevant elements per years and Tables mapping regulatory structures (e.g. States, Provinces, Boards, Health Institutions). PUBLICATION AND ETHICS Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and also presented at national and international conferences. Given this review is a secondary investigation of already published and/or openly available sources, programs, protocols, policy and statements, no ethical approvals is required. KEYWORDS Patient Oriented Research, Patient Research Engagement, Patient Centered Research, Health Institutions, Hospital, University, POR: Assessment, Evaluation, Criteria, Accreditation, Protocols, Programs, Review
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 | 0.329 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.022 |
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".