Priorities and challenges for a palliative approach to care for rural indigenous populations: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We carried out a scoping review to identify key priorities and challenges relevant to rural Indigenous palliative care stated in existing literature. Our scoping review activities followed Arskey and O'Malley's principles for conducting a scoping review. We included peer-reviewed literature from MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE that included a discussion of Indigenous populations, palliative care, and rural settings, and did not use date limits. The literature search was conducted in April 2016, and the retrieved literature was screened for relevance and appropriateness April 2016-March of 2017. In addition to the academic literature, a scan of the grey literature was conducted in March 2017. The retrieved grey literature was screened for relevance and reviewed by a team from a provincial health authority serving Indigenous peoples to ensure relevance in a rural BC setting. Once reviewed for relevance and appropriateness, we added four reports to supplement our analysis. Ultimately, 44 peer-reviewed articles and 4 pieces of grey literature met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Our analysis revealed several challenges and priorities relevant to rural Indigenous palliative care. Key challenges included: (i) environmental and contextual issues; (ii) institutional barriers; and (iii) interpersonal dynamics challenging client/clinician interactions. Priorities included: (i) family connections throughout the dying process; (ii) building local capacity for palliative care to provide more relevant and culturally appropriate care; and (iii) flexibility and multi-sectoral partnerships to address the complexity of day-to-day needs for patients/families. These findings point to several areas for change and action that can improve the relevance, access and comprehensiveness of palliative care programming for rural Indigenous communities in Canada and elsewhere. Taking into account of the diversity and unique strengths of each Indigenous community will be vital in developing sustainable and meaningful change.
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 | 0.070 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".