Content Validity of a Conceptual Model of a Palliative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The term "palliative approach" has emerged to connote healthcare activities provided consistent with the philosophy of palliative care, but not limited to specialized care providers or settings. A rigorous understanding of the palliative approach requires a conceptual model, which links the philosophy of palliative care to specific actions of practitioners, and is applicable to patients with any life-threatening illness, at any point on the disease trajectory, and provided by any care provider in any setting. This article proposes a conceptual model asserting that a palliative approach exists when care simultaneously addresses whole-person needs, enhances quality of life, and acknowledges mortality. OBJECTIVE: To test the content validity of the proposed model against definitions of palliative care in existing literature. DESIGN: Electronic and manual literature searches identified definitions of palliative care and palliative approach. Two authors independently conducted thematic analysis to assess congruence with the domains of the proposed conceptual model. RESULTS: Nineteen definitions were identified. The three domains were represented in the majority: whole-person care (17/19), quality-of-life focus (17/19), and mortality acknowledgement (15/19). Published definitions also included other concepts, but only one of these (family within the unit of care) appeared in more than a few definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The content validity of the proposed conceptual model is supported by the consistent presence of the three domains in published definitions. This conceptual model bridges philosophical definitions and clinician behavior and has potential to inform broad implementation of a palliative approach, at both clinic and system levels.
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 | 0.119 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".