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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".