Promoting Volunteer Capacity in Hospice Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospice volunteers play an essential role in the primary care network for end of life. The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence on hospice volunteers published between 2002 and July 2012. An electronic search of PubMed, CINAHL and PsychINFO using controlled vocabulary, and a reference scan, yielded 54 studies focusing on hospice volunteers. Studies were primarily descriptive using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Findings from studies were grouped thematically into descriptions of the work of hospice volunteers; recruitment, preparation and retention of hospice volunteers; and perspectives and outcomes of the volunteer role. A substantial body of evidence exists describing the roles, stresses and rewards of hospice volunteering. Less is known about how to adequately recruit, prepare and retain volunteers. A small but intriguing body of evidence exists around volunteers' contributions to family satisfaction and patient longevity. Although the evidence around hospice volunteers continues to grow, there is an urgent need for further research. Findings indicate that volunteers make important contributions to high quality end of life care. However, more focused research attention is required to better understand how to maximize this contribution while providing better support for volunteers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".