Rural Palliative Care: A Comprehensive Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Access to integrated, palliative care regardless of location of residence is a palliative care standard yet we know such access is limited for those living in rural and remote settings. As a beginning step in the development of research aimed at informing policy and program development, a comprehensive review of the state of knowledge regarding palliative care in rural contexts is required. Purpose: To identify, evaluate and synthesize the published literature on rural palliative care. Design: Comprehensive review. Methods: Computer searches were conducted on PubBMed, ISI Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Ageline using the search terms palliative care, hospice, terminal care, end-of-life care, end-of-life, and rural or remote. Results: One hundred fifty-eight studies were retrieved. After screening using relevance and quality criteria, 79 studies were included in the review. Studies were grouped by subject matter into one of three categories: patient and caregiver perspectives; professional attitudes, knowledge and practice issues; and health care services. Conclusion: The body of research literature is small and eclectic, which means there is little strong evidence to inform palliative policy and service development in rural settings. Coordinated programs of research are clearly required to develop a body of knowledge that is adequate to support effective service and policy development.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it