Bearing Witness: Exploring the End-of-Life Needs of Homeless Persons and Barriers to Appropriate Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional models of palliative care are largely inaccessible to homeless persons, and their preferences regarding end-of-life care are poorly understood. The purpose of the present scoping review is to summarize the burgeoning gray and academic literature on end-of-life care for homeless persons. Five medical databases, seven social science databases, and four gray literature databases were searched, resulting in 57 relevant titles. Six themes emerged: (a) Characteristics of homeless persons who require end-of-life care; (b) preferences and concerns of homeless persons approaching the end of life; (c) the role of spirituality for homeless persons at the end of life; (d) barriers to care at the patient, provider, and institutional or structural levels; (e) inclusive models of palliative care; and (f) implications for policy and practice. Practitioners and homeless persons must negotiate many obstacles in the provision and receipt of palliative care. However, there is tremendous potential and opportunity to improve the quality of life at the end of life for this vulnerable population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".