MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530224111 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20160054

Pediatric palliative care in Canada in 2012: a cross-sectional descriptive study

2016· article· en· W2530224111 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineSnowball samplingFamily medicineMultidisciplinary approachCross-sectional studyInclusion (mineral)Quality of life (healthcare)Descriptive researchPediatric cancerNursingPediatricsPsychologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pediatric palliative care focuses on comprehensive symptom management and enhancing quality of life for children with life-threatening conditions and their families. Our aim was to describe Canadian programs that provided specialized pediatric palliative care in 2012 and the children who received it and to estimate the proportion of children who might benefit that received specialized care. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used. Specialized pediatric palliative care programs were included in the study if they offered multidisciplinary consulting pediatric palliative care services to a wide range of children and served all populations of children with life-threatening illness regardless of diagnosis. Investigators in programs that had taken part in a prior study were invited to participate. New programs that met the inclusion criteria were identified through snowball sampling within pediatric palliative care networks. Program data were obtained via surveys with coinvestigators, and health record reviews were used to obtain information about the children who received care through the programs. RESULTS: All 13 programs identified, including 3 with a free-standing hospice, agreed to take part in the study. Of the 1401 children who received care, 508 (36.2%) were under 1 year of age, and 504 (36.0%) had a congenital illness or condition originating in the perinatal period. Of the 431 children who died in 2012, 105 (24.4%) died in a critical care setting. Programs with a hospice provided care to 517 children (36.9%). Children in this group tended to be older, more often had a neurologic illness and received care for a longer time than those who received care from programs without a hospice. Overall, 18.6% (95% confidence interval 17.1%-20.3%) of deceased children who might have benefitted from specialized pediatric palliative care based on diagnosis received such care, with 110 (25.2%) receiving care for less than 8 days. INTERPRETATION: Program growth and changes in patients' demographic and clinical characteristics indicate improved reach of programs. However, barriers remain that prevent most children with life-threatening conditions from receiving specialized pediatric palliative care services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it