Assessing Palliative Care Content in Dementia Care Guidelines: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Families of persons with dementia continue to report unmet needs during end of life (EOL). Strategies to improve care and quality of life for persons with dementia include development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and an integrative palliative approach. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess palliative care content in dementia CPGs to identify the presence or limitations of recommendations and discussion pertaining to common issues or domains affected by illness as described by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association "Square of Care." DESIGN: A systematic review of databases and gray literature was conducted for recent CPGs. Guidelines meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Quality CPGs were analyzed through organizational template analysis using illness domains described by the "Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association Model." The study protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42015025369). RESULTS: Eleven CPGs were selected and analyzed from 3779 citations. Nine guidelines demonstrated the maximum level of content regarding physical, psychological, and social care. Conversely, spiritual care was either absent (three) or minimal (three) in CPGs. Six CPGs did not address loss or grief, and seven CPGs did not address or had minimal content regarding EOL care. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of content surrounding grief represents a gap for this population at high risk for complicated grief and chronic sorrow. Results of this review require attention by CPG developers and researchers to develop evidence-based recommendations surrounding spiritual care, EOL, and grief.
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 | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".