Protocol for a scoping review to map patient engagement in scoping reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Scoping reviews of health research are increasing in popularity. However, only a minority of scoping reviews in this sector engage patients and caregivers as co-producers of the research. Despite developments in scoping review methodology, which insist that stakeholder consultation is essential, no guiding methods exist to instruct the conduct of this stage. Thus, it is necessary to understand how patients and caregivers have been engaged as part of scoping reviews, toward a unifying methodology. Methods We have developed a protocol for a scoping review of methods used to engage patients and caregivers in scoping reviews of health research. The search strategy will comprise two phases: the first will involve a secondary analysis of retrieved articles from a prior scoping review, and the second will identify articles that cite Levac et al.’s update to the original scoping review framework by Arksey and O’Malley. Titles and full texts of retrieved articles will be screened in duplicate. Inclusion will be limited to articles related to heath research that follow the six-stage scoping review framework by Arksey and O’Malley and that report patient engagement activities during at least one stage. The method of analysis of charted variables will be decided once data have been collected. Two patients will be engaged as collaborators throughout this review. We will also consult with patients, caregivers, and researchers upon completion of preliminary analyses. Discussion We anticipate that our scoping review will provide guidance for researchers seeking to involve health care stakeholders as co-producers of scoping reviews.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.576 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads 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".