Use of an Electronic Journal Club to Increase Access to and Acceptance of Palliative Care Literature across General Pediatricians and Pediatric Subspecialties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Implementation of pediatric palliative care as a primary practice relevant for all pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists requires a grounding, shared knowledge. This study reports on the innovative application of a monthly Palliative Care E-Journal Club (Pal Care Club) to foster shared palliative care knowledge hospital wide. OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of a monthly electronic journal club to increase the number of palliative care-relevant articles read and discussed and to enhance provider comfort with the integration and introduction of palliative care. METHODS: A single cohort, predesign-post-design was utilized to explore the impact of a monthly palliative care electronic journal club. RESULTS: Preintervention barriers to reading pediatric palliative care literature were primarily access and time. The mean of paired differences (post-pre) for the number of full-text articles read per month was 2.56 (SD = 1.25). The journal club intervention increased participant personal comfort with integrating palliative care principles at the bedside (p < 0.0001) and introducing pediatric palliative care to patients and families (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: An electronic journal club is a feasible and acceptable means of increasing number of palliative care articles read and discussed across an institution as well as enhancing pediatric palliative care knowledge across subspecialist and general pediatric services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".