How compassionate communities are implemented and evaluated in practice: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Compassionate communities are rooted in a health promotion approach to palliative care, aiming to support solidarity among community members at the end of life. Hundreds of compassionate communities have been developed internationally in recent years. However, it remains unknown how their implementation on the ground aligns with core strategies of health promotion. The aim of this review is to describe the practical implementation and evaluation of compassionate communities. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of the empirical peer-reviewed literature on compassionate communities. Bibliographic searches in five databases were developed with information specialists. We included studies in English describing health promotion activities applied to end-of-life and palliative care. Qualitative analysis used inductive and deductive strategies based on existing frameworks for categorization of health promotion activities, barriers and facilitators for implementation and evaluation measures. A participatory research approach with community partners was used to design the review and interpret its findings. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles were included for analysis. 74.6% were published after 2011. Health services organizations and providers are most often engaged as compassionate community leaders, with community members mainly engaged as target users. Adaptation to local culture and social context is the most frequently reported barrier for implementation, with support and external factors mostly reported as facilitators. Early stages of compassionate community development are rarely reported in the literature (stakeholder mobilization, needs assessment, priority-setting). Health promotion strategies tend to focus on the development of personal skills, mainly through the use of education and awareness programs. Few activities focused on strengthening community action and building healthy public policies. Evaluation was reported in 30% of articles, 88% of evaluation being analyzed at the individual level, as opposed to community processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The empirical literature on compassionate communities demonstrates a wide variety of health promotion practices. Much international experience has been developed in education and awareness programs on death and dying. Health promotion strategies based on community strengthening and policies need to be consolidated. Future research should pay attention to community-led initiatives and evaluations that may not be currently reported in the peer-review literature.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,069 | 0,231 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,022 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».