Research Priorities in Pediatric Palliative Care: A Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric palliative care is increasingly recognized to be a specialized type of care requiring specific skills and knowledge, yet, as found in several countries, there is little available research evidence on which to base care. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the project was to achieve consensus among palliative care practitioners and researchers regarding the identification of pertinent lines of research. METHOD: A Delphi technique was used with an interdisciplinary panel (n = 14-16) of researchers and frontline clinicians in pediatric palliative care in Canada. RESULTS: Four priority research questions were identified: What matters most for patients and parents receiving pediatric palliative services? What are the bereavement needs of families in pediatric palliative care? What are the best practice standards in pain and symptom management? What are effective strategies to alleviate suffering at the end of life? CONCLUSIONS: These identified priorities will provide guidance and direction for research efforts in Canada, and may prove useful in providing optimal care to patients and families in pediatric palliative care.
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 | 0.135 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".