A Comparative Study of the Situation of Bereavement Care for Children with Cancer in Iran with Selected Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Death of a child with cancer is one of the most painful events that results in traumatic reactions of bereavement. Care should be taken into account during the bereavement period. The present study aimed to develop bereavement care in Iran and comparing it with Jordan, England, Australia and Canada, which have achieved the desired situation in the above area. Materials and Methods In this comparative study, the necessary data was made to databases of reputable and sovereign centers of the countries and palliative care programs. After accessing the pioneering patterns of world-wide palliative care, Iran's palliative care program, which came from children's service centers and access to the databases of those centers, was also examined. Results In the developed countries of Canada, England and Australia, a wide range of bereavement care is provided in care facilities. for example following the death of a child, in Canada family members are covered by all the bereavement care, in Australia formal caregivers increase their relationship with parents and are available to listen to feelings and in England all family members are supported. Jordan provides significant services in this regard such as visits at the bereavement ceremony, however, it is provided limitedly only in one center in Iran. Conclusion In the developed countries, pediatric palliative care is well developed. But in some developing countries, including Iran, there are only a few of these services for dying children and their families. As a result, the traumatic results emerge in social and family life activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".