Shared decision-making in palliative care: A systematic mixed studies review using narrative synthesis
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
The aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge about the process of shared decision-making (SDM) in palliative care. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Web of Science were searched with core concepts: shared decisions, patient participation in decision-making, and palliative care. Titles and abstracts were screened according to inclusion criteria (original research, adult patients, Western contexts, decision-making, palliative treatment or setting), yielding 37 articles for analysis. A narrative synthesis was created using the methods of thematic analysis, conceptual mapping, and critical reflection on the synthesis process. Results demonstrate that while a majority of patients want to participate in treatment decisions to some extent, most do not achieve their preferred levels of involvement because decisions are delayed and alternative treatment options are seldom discussed. The literature regarding the process of SDM itself remains scarce in palliative care. Further research is needed in order to better understand the longitudinal, interactive, and interdisciplinary process of decision-making in palliative care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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