Availability and Use of Palliative Care and End-of-Life Services for Pediatric Oncology Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Palliative care prevents or relieves the symptoms caused by life-threatening medical conditions. Previous surveys have shown both underuse and lack of availability of these services for children with cancer throughout North America. We sought to investigate the current practices and resources surrounding palliative and end-of-life care among participating institutions of the Children's Oncology Group (COG). METHODS: A survey regarding practices and resources was developed by the COG palliative care subcommittee and was sent to all 232 institutions to complete for the calendar year 2005. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 81% of the institutions. Per institution, there were a mean of 64.6 newly diagnosed patients and 17.7 patients experiencing relapse. A palliative care team was available in 58% of institutions, a pain service in 90%, a hospice in 60%, a psychosocial support team in 80%, and a bereavement program in 59%. Complementary and alternative medicine was available in 39% of institutions and in 95% of the COG institution's community. Most services, even when available, were not well used by patients. CONCLUSION: Despite the well-established benefit of pediatric palliative care, it is only offered in 58% of COG institutions caring for children with cancer. In an era where the benefit of palliative care has been clearly established, this number should approach 100%. Efforts should be directed toward understanding barriers to provision of such services, so that they are available and well used at all childhood cancer centers.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".