Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".