MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778845135 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2017.0431

A National Palliative Care Strategy for Canada

2017· review· en· W2778845135 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineOutreachGovernment (linguistics)NursingHealth careQuality (philosophy)Family medicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify barrier to achieving universal access to high quality palliative care in Canada, review published national strategies and frameworks to promote palliative care, examine key aspects that have been linked to successful outcomes, and make recommendations for Canada. BACKGROUND: In 2014, the World Health Organization called on members to develop and implement policies to ensure palliative care is integrated into national health services. METHODS: Rapid review supplemented by the author's personal files, outreach to colleagues within the international palliative care community, review of European Association for Palliative Care publications, and a subsequent search of the table of contents of the major palliative care journals. RESULTS: Frameworks were found for 10 countries ranging from detailed and comprehensive multi-year strategies to more general approaches including laws guaranteeing access to palliative care services for "dying" patients or recommendations for the development of clinical infrastructure. Few formal evaluations were found minimal comparative data exist regarding the quality of care, access to palliative care services, timing of access in the disease trajectory, and patient and family satisfaction with care. Factors that appear to be associated with success include: 1) input and early involvement of senior policy makers; 2) comprehensive strategies that address major barriers to universal access and that involve the key constituents; 3) a focus on enhancing the evidence base and developing a national system of quality reporting; and 4) substantial and sustained government investment. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive national strategies appear to improve access to high quality palliative care for persons with serious illness and their families. Such strategies require sustained government funding and address barriers related to infrastructure, professional and public education, workforce shortages, and an inadequate evidence base.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.475
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.078 · 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