chore(script): Comment all TODO and FIXME markers
This commit is contained in:
parent
2dfc214a60
commit
d5c5cfe6d3
1 changed files with 5 additions and 7 deletions
|
@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ There is also low evidence for return to work being increased by education, work
|
|||
|
||||
# Methodology and data
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ TODO: besides scoping, introduce systematic review considerations applicable: Cochrane, PRISMA ++}}
|
||||
<!-- {{++ TODO: besides scoping, introduce systematic review considerations applicable: Cochrane, PRISMA ++}} -->
|
||||
|
||||
## The search protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -488,14 +488,14 @@ Of these, {nr_relevant} have been identified as potentially relevant studies for
|
|||
""")
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ FIXME: Update description for changing study pool ++}}
|
||||
<!-- {{++ FIXME: Update description for changing study pool ++}} -->
|
||||
|
||||
The currently identified literature rises almost continuously in volume,
|
||||
with small decreases between 2001 and 2008, as well as more significant ones in 2012 and 2016,
|
||||
as can be seen in @fig-publications-per-year.
|
||||
Keeping in mind that these results are not yet screened for their full relevance to the topic at hand, so far only being *potentially* relevant in falling into the requirements of the search pattern, an increased results output does not necessarily mean a clearly rising amount of relevant literature.
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ FIXME: give full year scale ++}}
|
||||
<!-- {{++ FIXME: give full year scale ++}} -->
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- TODO Should this be sub-divided by region or subdivision later per-section? -->
|
||||
```{python}
|
||||
|
@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ This is because, as @fig-publications-per-year showed, the overall output was no
|
|||
In all of these cases, such outliers should provide clear points of interest during the screening process for possible re-evaluation of current term clusters for scoping.
|
||||
Should they point towards gaps (or over-optimization) of sepcific areas of interest during those time-frames or more generally, they may provide an impetus for tweaking the identification query terms to better align with the prevailing literature output.
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ TODO: Add breakdown by thematic area++}}
|
||||
<!-- {{++ TODO: Add breakdown by thematic area++}} -->
|
||||
|
||||
```{python}
|
||||
#| label: fig-intervention-types
|
||||
|
@ -588,9 +588,8 @@ plt.show()
|
|||
by_intervention = None
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ TODO: describe intervention types with complete dataset ++}}
|
||||
|
||||
# Synthesis of Evidence --- a multitude of lenses
|
||||
<!-- {{++ TODO: describe intervention types with complete dataset ++}} -->
|
||||
|
||||
This section will present a synthesis of evidence from the scoping review.
|
||||
The section will also present a discussion on the implications of the current evidence base for policy and underscore key knowledge gaps.
|
||||
|
@ -1138,7 +1137,6 @@ A variety of studies also look at female economic empowerment outcomes through a
|
|||
focusing on the effects of interventions aimed at maternity support ---
|
||||
childcare programmes, paid leave and maternity benefits.
|
||||
|
||||
{{++ insert intervention/outcome breakdown ++}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Spatial inequality
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue