Moving Toward Quality Palliative Cancer Care: Parent and Clinician Perspectives on Gaps Between What Matters and What Is Accessible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The National Consensus Project (NCP) published a set of standards for quality palliative care delivery. A key step before applying these guidelines to pediatric oncology is to evaluate how much families and clinicians value these standards. We aimed to determine which elements of palliative care are considered important according to bereaved parents and pediatric oncology clinicians and to determine accessibility of these elements. METHODS: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate, 54%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate, 91%) at a large teaching hospital. Outcome measures included importance ratings and accessibility of core elements of palliative care delivery. RESULTS: Fifteen of 20 core elements were highly valued by both parents and clinicians (defined as > 60% of parents and clinicians reporting the item as important). Compared with clinicians, parents gave higher ratings to receiving cancer-directed therapy during the last month of life (P < .01) and involvement of a spiritual mentor (P = .03). Of the valued elements, only three were accessible more than 60% of the time according to clinicians and parents. Valued elements least likely to be accessible included a direct admission policy to hospital, sibling support, and parent preparation for medical aspects surrounding death. CONCLUSION: Parents and clinicians highly value a majority of palliative care elements described in the NCP framework. Children with advanced cancer may not be receiving key elements of palliative care despite parents and clinicians recognizing them as important. Evaluation of barriers to provision of quality palliative care and strategies for overcoming them are critical.
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 | 0.031 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".