Survey of UK hospice and specialist palliative care adult bereavement services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHOD: Postal survey of UK hospices and specialist palliative care services providing adult bereavement support. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and content analysis of free text replies. RESULTS: Three hundred services were identified, with 248 valid responses (83%). Of these, 198 (80%) were in England and 180 (73%) were associated with inpatient units. Most had been in existence for at least 10 years. Paid staff were used by 219 services (88%) and volunteers were involved in 168 services (68%). A small minority did not provide supervision for their bereavement staff. A quarter of services had insufficient staff. The most common activities were individual support, telephone support, written information, memorialization events and group support. Ninety-five services (43%) formally assessed the need for individual support. One hundred and fourteen services (51%) had no formal mechanisms for bereaved people to provide feedback about such support. Formal audit and evaluation of bereavement services was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: The main elements of bereavement support can be identified but their combination varies. Assessment of people for individual support varies and the small size of many services may inhibit the effective delivery of support. Audit and evaluation of bereavement support may need to be developed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".