Systematic Review of Palliative Care in the Rural Setting
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
BACKGROUND: Many of the world's population live in rural areas. However, access and dissemination of the advances taking place in the field of palliative care to patients living in rural areas have been limited. METHODS: We searched 2 large databases of the medical literature and found 248 relevant articles; we also identified another 59 articles through networking and a hand search of reference lists. Of those 307 articles, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were grouped into the following subcategories: intervention (n = 4), needs assessment (n = 2), program planning (n = 3), program evaluation (n = 4), education (n = 7), financial (n = 8), and comprehensive/systematic literature reviews (n = 11). RESULTS: We synthesized the current state of rural palliative care research and practice to identify important gaps for future research. Studies were conducted in the United States, Australia, Canada, Africa, Sweden, and India. Two randomized control trials were identified, both of which used telehealth approaches and had positive survival outcomes. One study demonstrated positive patient quality of life and depression outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Research to guide rural palliative care practice is sparse. Approaches to telehealth, community- academic partnerships, and training rural health care professionals show promise, but more research is needed to determine best practices for providing palliative care to patients living in rural settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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