Factors affecting rural volunteering in palliative care – an integrated review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To review factors shaping volunteering in palliative care in Australian rural communities using Australian and International literature. Identify gaps in the palliative care literature and make recommendations for future research. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Proquest, Scopus, Sage Premier, Wiley online, Ovid, Cochran, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Informit Health Collection. The literature was synthesised and presented in an integrated thematic narrative. Australian Rural communities. While Australia, Canada, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) are leaders in palliative care volunteer research, limited research specifically focuses on volunteers in rural communities with the least occurring in Australia. Several interrelated factors influence rural palliative care provision, in particular an increasingly ageing population which includes an ageing volunteer and health professional workforce. Also current and models of palliative care practice fail to recognise the innumerable variables between and within rural communities such as distance, isolation, lack of privacy, limited health care services and infrastructure, and workforce shortages. These issues impact palliative care provision and are significant for health professionals, volunteers, patients and caregivers. The three key themes of this integrated review include: (i) Geography, ageing rural populations in palliative care practice, (ii) Psychosocial impact of end-end-of life care in rural communities and (iii) Palliative care models of practice and volunteering in rural communities. The invisibility of volunteers in rural palliative care research is a concern in understanding the issues affecting the sustainability of quality palliative care provision in rural communities. Recommendations for future Australian research includes examination of the suitability of current models of palliative care practice in addressing the needs of rural communities; the recruitment, training, ongoing education and support of volunteers in rural palliative care provision to ensure equitable care for all communities in Australia regardless of location.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".